CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GUIDE

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Ȃ ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR III 1
2B 2010
A. Definition of Criminal Procedure
It is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of
persons accused of any criminal offense and for their punishment, in case of
conviction.
As applied to criminal law, procedural law provides or regulates the steps
which one who has committed a crime is to be punished.
It is concerned with the procedural steps through which a criminal case
passes, commencing with the initial investigation of a crime and concluding
with the release of the offender.
B. Source of Criminal Procedure
y Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure
y General Order No. 58 dated April 23, 1900
y Amendatory acts passed by the Philippine Commission
y The Quasi-Acts, the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Jones law of 1916, the
Tydings-McDuffie Law, and the Constitution of the Philippines
y The Rule of Court of 1940, and the 1964 (passed by Congress), 1985, and
1988 Rules on Criminal Procedure
y Various Republic Acts
y Presidential Decrees
y Constitution ± Art. 3 Bill of Rights
y Civil Code (Art. 32, 33, 34)
y Judicial decisions
y Circulars (SC)
y The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2000)
Can the SC amend the rules through its jurisprudence? Yes.
Article 8 Sec. 5 1987 Constitution
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest
may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
without the consent of the judge concerned.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to
the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law.
C. Systems of Criminal Procedure
The Inquisitorial System
y The detection and prosecution of offenders are not left to the initiative of
private parties but to the officials and agents of law.
y Judge is not limited to the evidence brought before him but could proceed
with his own inquiry which is not confrontational.
The Accusatorial System
y Every citizen or a member of the group to which the injured party belongs
may bring the accusation against a person suspected as the offender. As
the action is a combat between the parties, the supposed offender has the
right to be confronted by his accuser. The battle takes the form of a public
trial and is judged by a magistrate who renders a verdict. The essence of an
accusatorial system is the right to be presumed innocent. To defeat the
presumption, the prosecution must establish proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt or moral certainty.
Mixed System
y Combination of inquisitorial and accusatorial.
y Examination of defendants and other persons before filing the complaint is
inquisitorial.
y Judicial set-up in the Philippines is accusatorial or adversarial.
D. Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts
a. General Principles
b. Jurisdiction determined by the position
c. Jurisdiction determined by the allegations of the complaint
d. Jurisdiction acquired over the person of the accused
e. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by waiver
f. Jurisdiction not conferred by consent
g. Estoppels by laces to bar attacks on jurisdiction

2B 2010
h. Adherence of jurisdiction
i. Action of the court when determined that it has no jurisdiction
j. Jurisdiction over Dangerous Drugs cases
k. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts
l. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts
m.Special Jurisdiction of Courts
n. Jurisdiction over the PNP by regular Courts
o. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
p. Jurisdiction over Public Officers
q. Offense deemed committed in relation to Public Office
r. Jurisdiction not determined by allegations
s. Distinguished from jurisdiction of Ombudsman
t. Certiorari Jurisdiction
u. Exclusive Jurisdiction over PCGG cases
v. Jurisdiction to annul Judgments
w. Jurisdiction over Military and PNP
x. Jurisdiction of Military Court
y. No jurisdiction over civilians
z. Jurisdiction acquired by reason of arrest does not apply to military
proceedings

2B 2010
Court of Appeals Regional Trial Courts Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Original jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or
processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any
part of their respective regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments
of Regional Trial Courts; and
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
CIVIL Cases
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the
property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or
for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty
thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which
is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he
demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the
gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such
gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations
CRIMINAL Cases
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal
ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
(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 accessory or other
penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount
thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof. (As amended by R. A, No. 7691)
CIVIL Cases
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided,
That where there are several claims or causes of action between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
out of the same or different transactions;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant
raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession.
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the

2B 2010
Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law;
and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other above-
mentioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00). (As amended by R. A. No. 7691)
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots. (As amended by R. A. No. 7691)
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
all final judgments, resolutions,
orders or awards of Regional Trial
Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or
commission, including the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the
Social Security Commission, the
Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, Except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court in accordance
with the Constitution, the Labor
Code of the Philippines under
Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, the provisions of this Act,
and of subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph 4 of
the fourth paragraph od Section 17
of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all
cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire
record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such
memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional
Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to
the
Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when the petition
shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact
or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or
judgment sought to be reviewed.
The court of Appeals shall have the
power to try cases and conduct
hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary
to resolve factual issues raised in
cases falling within its original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new
trials or Appeals must be continuous
and must be completed within three
(3) months, unless extended by the
Chief Justice
Special jurisdiction to try special cases. ² The Supreme Court may
designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle
exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases,
agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the
jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other
special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of
a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Special jurisdiction in certain cases. ² In the absence of all the
Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial
Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear
and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail
in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional
Trial Judges sit.
Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. ²
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where
there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the where the

2B 2010
value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the
claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more
than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the
same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (As amended
by R. A. No. 7691)
Special Rules of Procedure. ² Whenever a Regional Trial Court
takes cognizance of juvenile and domestic relation cases and/or
agrarian cases, the special rules of procedure applicable under
present laws to such cases shall continue to be applied, unless
subsequently amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by the
Supreme Court.
Summary procedures in special cases. ² In Metropolitan Trial Courts
and Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches, the Supreme
Court may designate one or more branches thereof to try exclusively
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, those involving violations
of traffic laws, rules and regulations, violations of the rental law, and
such other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme
Court may determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or
procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve an
expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to
technical rules. Such simplified procedures may provide that affidavits
and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and
that the periods for filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.
Preliminary investigation. ² Judges of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
except those in the National Capital Region, of Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have authority to conduct
preliminary investigation of crimes alleged to have been committed
within their respective territorial jurisdictions which are cognizable by
the Regional Trial Courts.
The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in accordance with
the procedure prescribed in Section 1, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and
(d), of Presidential Decree No. 911: Provided, however, That if after
the preliminary investigation the Judge finds a prima facie case, he
shall forward the records of the case to the Provincial/City Fiscal for
the filing of the corresponding information with the proper court.
No warrant of arrest shall be issued by the Judge in connection with
any criminal complaint filed with him for preliminary investigation,
unless after an examination in writing and under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and his witnesses, he finds that a probable cause
exists.
Any warrant of arrest issued in accordance herewith may be served
anywhere in the Philippines.

2B 2010
D. Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts
What is jurisdiction?
y Jurisdiction is conferred by LAW
y Law ± congress, SC circular
y Law gives life, gives power to Jurisdiction
y A judge could only act within the power given by law within the
parameter of the law.
How will the judge know if he could act?
He will base it on the INFORMATION because LAW
says so. The INFORMATION/COMPLAINT tells whether
or not he can act on it.
y Determined by the ALLEGATIONS ON THE COMPLAINT/INFORMATION
Power or authority given by the law to a court to hear and determine certain
controversies.
VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL. Place of commission dictates.
Venue is INSEPARABLE to JURISDICTION.
BUT VENUE of TRIAL may be transferred.
y In criminal cases, Venue and Jurisdiction is considered as one. In civil
cases, separate.
Venue Jurisdiction
Particular area in which a court
with jurisdiction may hear and
determine a case. It means the
place of trial.
The power of the court to
decide the case on merits.
Procedural Substantive
May be waived or stipulated in
CIVIL cases. BUT NOT IN
CRIMINAL cases.
Granted by law or by the
constitution and cannot be
waived or stipulated.
y Territorial in criminal cases
y Always the place where the crime is committed
y Cannot be waived in criminal cases
y Exceptions:
Art. 2 RPC
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
preceding 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.
Human Security Law
Sec. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. - The
provisions of Article 125 of theRevised Penal Code to the contrary
notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel, who, having
been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken
custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or
the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall, without incurring any
criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities, deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper
judicial authority within a period of three days counted from the moment
the said charged or suspected person has been apprehended or arrested,
detained, and taken into custody by the said police, or law enforcement
personnel: Provided, That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the
surveillance under Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under
Section 27 of this Act.
The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall, before
detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism, present him or
her before any judge at the latter's residence or office nearest the place
where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night. It shall be the
duty of the judge, among other things, to ascertain the identity of the
police or law enforcement personnel and the person or persons they have
arrested and presented before him or her, to inquire of them the reasons
why they have arrested the person and determine by questioning and
personal observation whether or not the suspect has been subjected to
any physical, moral or psychological torture by whom and why. The judge

2B 2010
shall then submit a written report of what he/she had observed when the
subject was brought before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction
over the case of the person thus arrested. The judge shall forthwith submit
his/her report within three calendar days from the time the suspect was
brought to his/her residence or office.
Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of
the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law
enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest
the place of apprehension or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is
made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the
written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the
place where the accused was arrested.
The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement
personnel who fails to notify and judge as Provided in the preceding
paragraph.
Without LAW, Court has no JURISDICTION.
If court has no jurisdiction, what should it do?
A court cannot transfer, it must dismiss the case. (RCBC case)
Example.
You reside in Makati, crime was committed in QC. Where do you file?
Physical injuries/estafa: QC
Residence is IMMATERIAL
Libel: has special rules:
y Where the essential elements of crime was committed. Published.
y Private: residence
y Public: office
y Residence is MATERIAL in LIBEL.
BP 22: Where the essential elements of the crime is committed
Estafa: where the crime is committed.
Example.
Crime in Laguna, but tried in Pasig to avoid miscarriage of Justice because
he is a mayor in Laguna.
Ampatuan Massacre. Though crime was in Maguindanao, it is being tried
here in Manila.
What Could be transferred is the VENUE of the TRIAL; subject to the
approval of the Supreme Court.
y Must apply to the Supreme Court
y BUT always start/institute in Location where crime is committed
A. General Principles
People v. Mariano 76 SCRA 600
The office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed an Information accusing Mariano of
estafa. Mariano was the Liaison Officer of Mayor Nolasco and is authorized to receive
and be receipted for US excess property of USAID/NEC for the use and benefit of the
municipality. The property received were electric cables and cable powers amounting
to P4,797.35 which he had a duty to deliver to the Mayor. However he willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of confidence and deceit, misappropriate,
misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the items.
Mariano filed a motion to quash the Information claiming that the court had no
jurisdiction. He claimed that the items which were the subject matter of the Information
against him were the same items for which Mayor Nolasco was indicted by the Military
Commission under a charge of malversation and found guilty. He claimed that
inasmuch as the case against Mayor Nolasco has already been decided by the
Military Tribunal, the CFI of Bulacan had lost jurisdiction over him. Respondent judge
granted the motion to quash stating that since the Military Commission had already
taken cognizance of the malversation case involving the same subject matter in its
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court, the case for estafa has already been heard and
decided.
Issue:
Whether or not civil courts and military commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction
over estafa and committed by a civilian
Held: there is no concurrent jurisdiction
Ratio:
The question of jurisdiction of respondent CFI is to be resolved on the basis of the law
or statute providing for or defining its jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1948 in Section
44 (f) provides the CFI shall have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the
penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months or fine of more than
200 pesos. Estafa falls under the original jurisdiction of CFI.
Jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action. At the time the criminal case was filed on Dec 18, 1974,
the law in force vesting jurisdiction upon said court is the Judiciary Act of 1948.
General Order No. 49 dated Oct 4, 1974, redefines the jurisdiction of military tribunals
over certain offenses, and estafa and malversation are not enumerated therein.
Therefore, the Military Commission is not vested with jurisdiction over the crime of
estafa.

2B 2010
We do not have here a situation involving two tribunals with concurrent jurisdiction
over a particular crime so as to apply the rule that whoever takes cognizance first
acquires jurisdiction exclusive of the other. The Military Commission is without power
or authority to hear and determine the crime of estafa against Mariano hence there is
no concurrent jurisdiction to speak of. Estafa falls within the sole exclusive jurisdiction
of civil courts.
Doctrines:
Jurisdiction ± basic foundation of judicial proceedings. The word ³jurisdiction is derived
from two Latin words ³juris´ and ³dico´ ± ³I speak by the law´ which means
fundamentally the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain,
hear, and determine certain controversies.
Jurisdiction acquired by court over subject matter of controversy retained up to the
end of litigation.
The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at
the time of instituting the action and not at the time of the commission of the crime.
US v. Jueves 23 Phil. 100
The defendants/appellants were charged with the crime of brigandage or highway
robbery for having committed the following acts:
(1) On the evening of December 31, 1903, in Alabat, Tayabas Province, a band of
armed men entered the municipal building, bound the presidente, took seven guns,
and killed the Justice of Peace of that town.
(2) On the evening of February 04, 1904, a band of some twenty men ( 3 armed
with guns and the rest with bolos ) entered the house of Doroteo Maraver, situated
in the sitio of Capalohan (at that time, a part of the town of Capalongan, Ambos
Camarines ), tied and bound four men, and ordered the women to prepare a meal
for them. After eating, they left with them men whom they bound and also some
tobacco and rice. They went to the house of Francisco Ambas, one of their
prisoners, where they took a hog and other things. Afterwards, they proceeded to a
river where they liberated Angelo Lunasco and Doroteo Maraver (two of their
prisoners ).
(3) On Holy Thursday of 1904, a band of men, armed with a revolver, 3 shotguns,
and bolos, went to the barrio of Basiad ( also within the jurisdiction of
Capalongan, Ambos Camarines at that time ) taking 3 men as prisoners,
conducting them from place to place. One of the prisoners, Juan Talento, managed
to escape.
(4) One morning of August 1910, two of the accused, Agustin Jueves and Felix
Jueves, with their younger brother, Esteban Jueves, all armed with large bolos,
entered the house of Serapio Juego, situated near the sea of sitio of Pangas,
municipality of Calauag, Tayabas, and took possession of a small quantity of rice.
yGraciana Laiman, wife of Francisco Ambos, and Doroteo Maraver identified all
seven of the accused of having committed the unlawful acts.
yAngelo Lunasco identified 5 of the accused and Juan Talento identified 3 of the
accused of having committed the unlawful acts.
yThe testimonies of the witnesses show conclusively that the guilt of the appellants
has been established beyond any question of doubt.
NOTES:
A small portion of the Province of Ambos Camarines was transferred to the Province
of Tayabas.
The Court of First Instance of Tayabas took jurisdiction of the crime committed within
the transferred territory PRIOR to the time jurisdiction was conferred and convicted the
appellants.
ISSUES:
1.) W/N the Court of First Instance of Tayabas has jurisdiction of the crime committed
within the transferred territory PRIOR to the time jurisdiction was conferred.
2.) W/N the assumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed before jurisdiction was
conferred is in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Philippine Bill.
RATIO:
1.) YES. The territory where the acts complained of in the case at bar were committed
having been transferred to the Province of Tayabas prior to the institution of this
action, the court of that province had jurisdiction to hear and determine this case.The
change of the territory after the crime was committed and before the institution of this
action does not touch the offense nor change the punishment therefor. It only includes
the place of the commission of the offense within another judicial district, and subjects
the Appellants to trial in that district. The court held that the jurisdiction of Tayabas
court was complete.
2.) NO. The assumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed before jurisdiction was
conferred is not in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Philippine Bill having said
that the change of the territory after the crime was committed and before the institution
of this action does not touch the offense nor change the punishment. It does not
prejudice the rights of the accused.
DECISION:
The Supreme Court held that CFI of Tayabas has jurisdiction of the crime and affirmed
the conviction of the appellants.
Reyes v. Diaz 73 Phils. 484
Issue was W/N there is sufficient evidence to show that the protestant has duly filed
his certificate of candidacy and W/N the trial court has or has no authority to pass
upon the validity of the ballots adjudicated to the protestant which have not been
challenged by the protestee in his counter-protest.
Doctrine:
Courts; Jurisdiction; Supreme Court¶s Appelate Powers. ± the issue of jurisdiction
which confers appellate powers upon the Supreme Court in a given case is not such

2B 2010
question as is dependent exclusively upon minor matters of fact or upon a mere
instruction of the pleadings, but that which has reference to the more important
question of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter as determined by law.
Id; Id; Over subject matter how determined. ± the question of whether a court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter, calls for interpretation and application of the law of
jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the different courts in the
Philippines, and since the ruling on the matter is of far-reaching consequences,
affecting, as it may, the very life and structure of our judicial system, the law has
deemed it wise to place the power and authority to act thereon in the highest court of
the land.
Id; Id; Question of Filing Cert. of Candidacy; Case at Bar. ± in the instant case, there is
no question of jurisdiction. Both parties agree that if the due filing of the protestant¶s
certificate of candidacy is proven, the trial court has jurisdiction, but that if such fact is
not proven the trial court has no jurisdiction except to dismiss the case. There is,
therefore, no question between the parties as to what the jurisdiction of the trial court
is according to law in either case. The real question between them is one of fact ±
whether or not the protestant¶s certificate of candidacy has been duly filed. And not
until this fact is proved can the question of jurisdiction be determined.
Id; Id; Jurisdiction over Subject Matter and Issue Distinguished. ±
Over Issue Over Subject Matter
Conferred by pleadings Conferred by law
May be conferred by consent, either
express or implied.
X
Even if not duly pleaded, it may validly be
tried and decided if no timely objection is
made thereto by the parties.
X
Velunta v. Chief, Philippine Constabulary 157 SCRA 147
Facts:
Petitioner is a regular member of the Integrated National Police (INC) of Tacloban
City, with rank of Patrolman. On April 16, 1982, at around 6pm while directing traffic,
petitioner tried to apprehend Romeo Lozano, a tricycle driver, for violation of traffic
rules and regulations. An altercation occurred between them and resulted in the
shooting at the left cheek leading to the death of Romeo Lozano. The widow of
Lozano, Mrs. Lozano, filed an administrative complaint against petitioner in
NAPOLCOM.NAPOLCOM issued a decision which held petitioner guilty of grave
misconduct with a penalty of Dismissal from Service. On a motion for reconsideration,
petitioner was held guilty for Less Grave Misconduct and modified the penalty to
suspension for 6 months without pay. During the pendency of the administrative case,
Mrs. Lozano filed a complaint for homicide with the City Fiscal¶s Office of Tacloban.
After finding prima facie evidence of petitioner¶s intent to kill and he was on the
performance of his duties when the shooting occurred, the City Fiscal recommended
the case be referred to the Tanodbayan for further investigation. The Tanodbayan
endorsed the filing of information for homicide against petitioner. The case was
referred to the military authorities pursuant to P.D.1850 which authorizes the Chief of
Phil. Constabulary (PC) to convene court martials to try, hear, and decide cases for
criminal acts committed by members of the INC. Petitioner challenges the assumption
of jurisdiction by the General Court Martial over his case pursuant to E.O 1040 in
relation to E.O. 1012 whereby supervision and control over all units and members of
the INC have been placed under NAPOLCOM directly under the Office of the
President.
Relevant Issue:
Whether the General Court Martial has jurisdiction over the case.
Held:
Yes
Ratio:
It is specifically stated under EO 1012 that only the ³operational supervision and
direction´ over all units of the INC force stationed or assigned in the diff. cities and
municipalities that was transferred from the PC to the city or municipal govt.
concerned. Under EO 1040, it is the exercise of ³administrative control and
supervision´ over all units of the INC forces throughout the country that was
transferred to the President of the Phils. The distinction between operational
supervision and direction over the INC and jurisdiction or authority of a court-
martial to hear, try and decide a criminal proceeding is that in the former, it
refers to how the police will perform their functions and who shall direct such
performance, while in the latter, it refers to the tribunals vested with power to try
criminal cases against them.
Uy v. Sandiganbayan 312 SCRA 77
Uy was member of Phil. Navy. He was designated by his supervisor to act on his
behalf during his absence which included authority to sign disbursement vouchers
relative to the procurement of equipment needed by the Navy. 6 Informations for
estafa through falsification of official documents were filed against him and other co-
accused regarding malversation of the funds for seal rings. Petitioner filed a motion to
quash the informations and one of the grounds is that Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused. Sandiganbayan
denied the motion.
Petitioner and Sol Gen submit that it is the court-martial who has jurisdiction over the
case because at the time the informations were filed, the controlling law on the
jurisdiction over the AFP is PD 150.
Issue: W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdicition?
Held: No.

2B 2010
Ratio:
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner at the time of the filing of the
informations, and as now prescribed by law. The petitioner did not fall within the ³rank´
requirement stated in Sec 4 of Sandiganbayan Law, exclusive jurisdiction over
petitioner is vested in the regular courts. The Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial
powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
B. Jurisdiction determined by the position
Subido v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 122641; January 20, 1997)
Facts:
On June 25, 1992, Bayani Subido Jr., then a Commissioner of the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID) and Rene Parina, a BID special agent, while in the
performance of their official functions, issued and implemented a warrant of arrest
against James J. Maksimuk, knowing fully well that the BID decision requiring
Maksimuk¶s deportation was not yet final and executory. This resulted to the detention
of Maksimuk for a period of 43 days, causing him undue injury.
Subido and Parina were charged with Arbitrary Detention defined and punished by
Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code. For their part, the petitioners filed a Motion to
Quash, contending that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case since
when it was filed, Subido was no longer part of the service and Parina was not
occupying a position corresponding to salary grade ³27´.
Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case
Ruling:
Yes. The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case by virtue of Section 2 of R.A.
7975, which amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606
Section 2: Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
Section 4: Jurisdiction ± The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original
jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 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 positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.A.
6758), specificially including:
xxx
5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ³27´ 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 the
office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with the
Executive Order Nos. 1,2, 14, and 14-A.
In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions
corresponding to salary grade ³27´ or higher, as prescribed in said R.A.
6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or
their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested n 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 jurisdiction as provided in Batas Blg. 129.
Contrary to the claims of the petitioners, R.A. 7975 applies since what is considered is
the time of the commission of the crime, during which Subido was still Commissioner
of BID. Similarly, although Parina was holding a position with a classification lower
than salary grade ³27´, it still applies to him since he is prosecuted as a co-conspirator
of Subido, the principal accused. Jurisdiction is only vested on the other courts if none
of the principal accused where occupying positions corresponding to salary grade
³27´.
CUYCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 137017-18, February 8, 2000
FACTS:
Graft Investigation Officer Ma. Lourdes M. Vilaria-Yap found probable cause for the
indictment of Ramon G. Cuyco (petitioner), Generoso P. Germino and Melcy V. Wee
for violation of Section 3(a), R.A.3019, and Cuyco with Rolando R. Madarang for
violation of Section 3(e) of the same Act. (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
She recommended the filing of two informations against Cuyco.
The Ombudsman approved the recommendation, and the prosecution filed with the
Sandiganbayan two informations against Cuyco for both offenses.
Cuyco filed a motion to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction, contending that
the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the cases.
The Sandiganbayan issued resolutions denying the motion to quash and ordering the
preventive suspension of Cuyco and his co-accused for ninety (90) days.
Cuyco filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to set aside the resolutions in
question and to dismiss the criminal cases for want of jurisdiction. This was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the cases against petitioner
for violation of Sections 3(a) and (e), R.A.3019, as amended.
HELD:
No. The Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction.

2B 2010
RATIO:
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses and felonies, whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by public officers and employees in relation to
their office, where the accused holds a position with salary grade "27" and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
At the time of the commission of the offense in 1992, he was occupying the position of
Director II, Salary Grade 26, hence, jurisdiction over the cases falls with the Regional
Trial Court.
The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a) and (e), R.A., as
amended, unless committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of
regional director and higher with Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. 6758) in relation to their office.
C. Jurisdiction determined by the allegations of the complaint
Buaya v. Polo
Facts:
Buaya is the insurance agent of Country Bankers Insurance Company. She is
required to make a periodic report and accounting of her transactions and remit
premium collections to Country Bankers. The account of Buaya was audited and it
was showed that P358,850 was unremitted.
She was charged with estafa in the Manila RTC. Buaya filed a motion to
Quash on the ground that the Manila RTC has no jurisdiction because she is from
Cebu and that the case is civil in nature (a separate civil case was filed) but was
denied. She filed for a motion for reconsideration but it was also denied. So now, she
filed a certiorari in the Supreme Court questioning the denials of such motion by Judge
Polo.
The case did not go through the Court of Appeals
Issue: Did the court have jurisdiction over the case?
Held:
YES. Manila RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
Estafa was sufficiently addressed in the information. Estafa is a continuing or
transitory offense and the case can be instituted upon any place where any of the
essential requisites of Estafa were committed. One of the essential requisites of
Estafa is damage or prejudice to 3
rd
persons. Here, given that the main office of
Country Bankers is in Manila, the non remittance of Buaya which caused damage to
Country Bankers was committed in Manila.
The information in this case reads as follows: ³that during the period 1980 to June 15,
1982, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the Country Bankers Insurance Corp
represented by Banez duly organized and existing under the Philippine laws of the
Philippines, with principal address at 9
th
floor, GR Antonio Bldg, TM Kalaw, ERmita in
said city in the following manner: the said accused«. ³
The City of manila was alleged in the information so the Manila RTC has jurisdiction.
US v Gallegos
Facts:
y Criminal complaint for adultery includes both parties.
y Mariano Gallegos had relations with Benita Antioquia several times, and as a
result Antioquia gave birth to a daughter
y Complaint includes both Gallegos and Antioquia, but only Gallegos was arrested,
because Antioquia ³could not be apprehended after due diligence´
Issue:
1. W/N, in a criminal action for adultery one of the defendants may be tried alone
when for some reason or other his co-defendant has not been arrested and
brought to trial
2. W/N prosecution, after closing its case, may present additional proof relating to
the jurisdiction of the court
Held/Ratio:
1. Yes. While the law provides that the complaint must be presented, in a criminal
action for adultery (a) by the offended person and (b) against both of the alleged
culprits, there is no provision of law requiring that they shall be tried jointly. In
fact, there is a positive provision of law permitting them to be tried separately
(section 33, general orders no. 58)
2. Yes. Section 31, General Orders no. 58 provides that after both parties have
presented their evidence, they may offer rebutting testimony only, unless the
court, in the furtherance of justice, permit them to offer new and additional
evidence bearing upon the main issue in question.
The question of jurisdiction of the court is always a question of importance. If
evidence is necessary to prove that fact, so far as the place of the commission of
the rime is concerned, in the interest of justice the court may always permit it to
present additional evidence, if that fact appears before the trial of the case is
closed
D. Jurisdiction acquired over the person of the accused
REPUBLIC vs. SUNGA
June 20, 1988

2B 2010
An Information for Attempted Homicide was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of
Camarines Sur against accused-private respondents Rafael Anadilla, Ariston Anadilla
and Jose Anadilla. A hearing was set but was postponed since Rafael Anadilla was
not yet arrested by the authorities. The court a quo issued an order for the arrest of
said accused, and at the same time set a new trial date.
However, 4 months before the trial date, the court a quo issued the now
assailed order which reads:
³Considering that the offended party, Jose Dadis is no longer interested in
the further prosecution of this case and there being no objection on the part of the
accused Ariston Anadilla, Rafael Anadilla and Jose Anadilla, this case is hereby
DISMISSED with costs de oficio.
Consequently, the order of arrest issued by this Court against the accused
Rafael Anadilla dated March 11, 1974, is hereby ordered lifted and has no force and
effect.
The bail bond posted for the provisional liberty of the accused is hereby
ordered cancelled.
In the case of Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla, the Provincial Warden is
hereby ordered to release said accused from their detention immediately upon receipt
of this order.
SO ORDERED. ³
The order was based on an AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE which was
executed and notarized by the victim and mentioned that:
a. he was no longer interested in the further prosecution of the case
b. he had forgiven the accused
c. his material witnesses could not be located, and that without their testimonies,
the guilt of the accused could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The provincial fiscal moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, but was also denied.
Hence the petition and issue of the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit
of desistance executed by the offended party, but without a motion to dismiss filed by
the prosecuting fiscal.
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
The court cites a similar case Crespo v. Mogul in its when it answered that
the filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and
determine the case. When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for
the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily
submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of
determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the
accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court.
The rule is that once a complaint is filed, the disposition of the accused rests
in the sound discretion of the court. The fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the court
when the case has been submitted to it as his jurisdiction ends in the direction and
control of the prosecution of the case. Only the court can decide what the best
direction is for the case, as it is within its exclusive jurisdiction.
In this case, almost 10 years have elapsed since the date of the filing of the
information, hence it was not unusual that the victim could not find his witnesses, the
testimonies of whom are needed to convict the accused. The fiscal still believed that
he could convict the accused without thee testimonies in his MR!
Although the Crespo doctrine holds that it is the courts duty to judge
whether a case should be dismissed, any move of the offended part to dismiss
the case, even without objection of the accused, should first be submitted to the
fiscal. It is only after the fiscal¶s hearing that the court should exercise its duty
to continue or dismiss the case.
E. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by waiver
US v De la Santa
*This case was decided in 1907, when the old Penal and Civil Codes were still in
effect. The old Penal Code provision on seduction covered the age range of 12-23,
while the old Civil Code places a woman¶s age of majority at 23.
Facts:
y De la Santa allegedly seduced Teofila Sevilla in 1902, under promise of
marriage, when she was under 21.
y The complaint was filed only in 1906, when she was already 24.
y It was at Esteban Sevilla¶s instance, private prosecutor and Teofila¶s dad,
that the complaint was filed.
y The Marinduque CFI convicted De la Santa of Seduction.
y Hindi na dumaan sa CA yung case.
Issues:
y Does the father have such right to institute a Seduction complaint, taking
Teofila¶s age (of majority, upon filing) into consideration?
y Does De la Santa¶s lack of objection over the complaint, being outside the
CFI¶s jurisdiction, effectively make him waive his right to such defect?
y With Teofila¶s attendance and testimony in the CFI proceedings, may she
be said to have instituted the proceedings, though the complaint was signed
and sworn by her father?

2B 2010
Held/Ratio
y No. Article 448 of the old Penal Code does not automatically authorize the
institution of criminal proceedings by all the mentioned parties. Though the
act may only be committed upon a woman still legally incapacitated, all
other alternative parties mentioned, like the father, lose their right to do so
when the victim reaches the age of majority.
y Though mentioned disjunctively, the right to institute criminal proceedings in
seduction is exclusively and successively conferred in the order they
are named. (victim muna, then parents, then grandparents, then guardian)
y Also, the lawmakers did not intend this conjunction of rights, bearing in mind
the possibility of pardon by the offended party while these other persons are
attempting to file complaints.
y No. ³Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is fatal, and subject to
objection at any stage of the proceedings,´ in the trial court or on appeal.
y Jurisdiction may only be conferred by law, and the accused cannot confer
jurisdiction, by waiver or otherwise.
y No. Nothing on record indicated such, and the fact that she was
subpoenaed compelled her to appear, voluntary or not. (beside the point
daw, taking active part in the proceedings is not sufficient basis for this
unless she herself submitted and formally maintained the complaint)
F. Jurisdiction not conferred by consent
US vs Reyes
Facts
The defendant was charged with the crime of estafa and falsification. He is an
employee of the Manila-Dagupan Railway. He issued a ticket to a passenger who was
going from Manila to Caloocan who continued his trip to Malolos. The ticket issued
that simulated the trip was from Manila to Bocaue which costs 18 cents. There was a
1 peso and 22 cents difference in the fare.
The complaint does not designate the place where the falsification was committed.
Issue: Where must the jurisdiction be vested?
Held: The case must be tried in Tarlac and not in Manila.
y According to the testimony of the accused, he rendered an account to the
station master at Tarlac of the Money collected during the trip. It is also
there where he delivered the stub in which the simulation or falsification was
committed.
y In an itemized account of the collections made him on the trip, an entry
corresponding to the stub alleged to have been falsified was dated in Tarlac
and contains an invoice of delivery signed by the accused and a receipt
signed by the station master for the sum of 6 pesos and 48 cents.
y Because it was within the territory of the court that the appropriation
constituting the crime of estafa was committed and the accused made use
of the document alleged to be false at the same territory.
y The fact that the CFI of Manila took jurisdiction of the offense charged,
because, in the opinion of the court, the place of the commission of the
crime was not clearly shown, is not an obstable to the court¶s declaring itself
to be without jurisdiction as soon as the lack of jurisdiction appeared from
proceedings subsequently had. Jurisdiction over criminal cases cannot be
conferred by consent.
G. Estoppels by laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V ALEX REGALARIO ET.AL.
GR NO. 101451 MARCH 23,1993
Facts:
Regalario and 6 others were found guilty of murder of a Menardo Garcia.
(CrimPro relevant) Judgment of conviction was promulgated on Jan 17 and a copy of
which was received by the appellants¶ counsel the next day, Jan 18. Appellants filed
MR on Jan 31 but the court denied on Feb 22. On March 14, appellants filed notice of
appeal but the trial court denied for having been filed out of time.
(Syllabus topic relevant)Neither the State nor private prosecutor moved for the
dismissal of the appeal made by the appellants nor objected to the order of the trial
court to forward the records to the SC for appellate review
Issue:
y On the matter of filing within the reglamentary period:
y Whether the lower court erred in denying notice of appeal on the ground of
being filed out of time
y Appellants¶ claim: computation of 15 days within which to file notice of
appeal should have been counted from Feb 23(day after the MR was
denied) and not from Jan 31 (day the verdict pre-MR was given)
y In short, the appellants¶ claim that the 15 day reglamentary period should
have restarted on the day of the denial of the MR
y On the matter concerning the syllabus topic, Estoppel by laches to bar
attacks on jurisdiction
y (Counsel for the state questions authority of the Supreme Court to review
the case)
Ruling of the lower court:
(Issue on procedure is being questioned for the first time in the Supreme Court)
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
(TRIAL COURT DENIAL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AFFIRMED):
y The notice of appeal was filed beyond the reglamentary period set by law
y Section 6 of Rule 122 states that: ³«appeal must be taken 15 days from
promulgation or notice of judgment or order appealed from. This period for
perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion for new

2B 2010
trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of order overruling the motion shall
have been served upon the accused or his attorney...´
y The rule states period shall only be ³interrupted´ thus appellants only had 1
day with which to file notice of appeal with the trial court
y Estoppel by laches to bar attacks of jurisdiction of the court had already
attached. Neither the public or private prosecutor moved for the dismissal of
the appeal or objected to the order of the trial court to forward records to the
Supreme Court for appellate review. It was only after appellants had already
filed their briefs with the SC that counsels for the state raised the issue of
belated appeal and lack of appellate jurisdiction of the SC in the case.
H. Adherence of jurisdiction
Dela Cruz vs. Moya
Facts: -Dela Cruz is a Member of the Armed Forces Intelligence and Operations
Section
- armed with a MISSION ORDER, DelaCruz proceeds to Maco, Davao del
Norte to investigate reports of illegal cockfighting being conducted
- Delacruz and company catches operators of cockfighting, including
deceased Eusebio Cabito in flagrante
-Delacruz and co.fails to arrest operators but confiscates evidence of the
crime (eg. Gaffs, fighting cocks, etc)
-Delacruz and co. were followed by the cockfight operators on their way
back to the PC headquarters, fighting ensued wherein Delacruz shot Cabito
Aug 2, 1979 Delacruz is charged with homicide in the CFI of Davao
Issues: W/N CFI has jurisdiction over the subject matter
Held: NO.
Ratio: -Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; One of the essential requisites of a valid court
proceeding is that the court hearing must have jurisdiction over of the subject
matter of the case. Determined by the statute at force at the time the action was
commenced
-at that time General Order.59 was operative giving military tribunals
exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by military personnel while
in the performance of their official duty
-Delacruz was executing a Mission Order=performing official duties
-court records contain a copy of Mission Order; certificate from secretary of
DND is unnecessary
-CFI was without jurisdiction to try the case
People vs Magallanes
Facts:
y Two informations for kidnapping for ransom with murder (of Gargar and
Lumangyao) were filed with the RTC of Bacolod City against 14 persons, 5
whom are members of the PNP
y Each of the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment
y Prosecution rested its case and the trial court started to receive the
evidence for the accused
y Private prosecutors moved for the transmittal of the records of the cases to
the Sandiganbayan (SB) on the ground that, pursuant to our decision of 11
March 1994 in Republic of the Philippines vs. Asuncion, the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the cases because the offenses charged were committed in
relation to the office of the accused PNP officers
y RTC issued an order denying the motion
y The prosecution, represented by the OSG, prayed for a TRO challenging
the refusal of the respondent Judge Magallanes to transfer the cases to the
SB
Issue:
w/n RTC of Bacolod City has jurisdiction over the case instead of the SB - YES
Ruling:
y At the time the informations in the said cases were filed, the law governing
the jurisdiction of the SB was Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606
y Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information and not by the result of evidence after trial.
y For lack of an allegation in the informations that the offenses were
committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers or were
intimately connected with the discharge of the functions of the accused, the
subject cases come within the jurisdiction of the RTC and not of the SB
y The allegation of "taking advantage of his position" or "taking advantage of
their respective positions" incorporated in the informations is not sufficient to
bring the offenses within the definition of "offenses committed in relation to
public office."
y The SB partly lost its exclusive original jurisdiction in cases involving
violations of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corruption), it retains only cases
where the accused are those enumerated in subsection a, Section 4 (R.A.
7975) and officials classified as Grade "27" and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6758)
y Also, upon express provision of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975, all criminal
cases in which trial has not yet begun in the SB shall be referred to the
proper courts. Hence, cases which were previously cognizable by the SB
under P.D. No. 1606, as amended, but are already under the jurisdiction of
the courts by virtue of the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7975, shall be
referred to the latter courts if hearing thereon has not yet been commenced
in the SB
CONCURRING and DISSENTING OPINION:
y Padilla: the act of Torres was undoubtly connected with his position as
station commander of PNP; others were performing as law enforcers such

2B 2010
that the case must be prosecuted in the SB. The informations must have
been filed with the SB.
y Kapunan: in favor of granting bail
Uy v. CA
Facts:
Uy formed a partnership with Leong to contribute to the former¶s lumber business.
A lumber store was erected using the funds Leong contributed.
Their relationship soured and this prompted Leong to ask for her investment back.
The checks issued by Uy were all dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
Leong lodged a complaint for Estafa and a violation of BP 22.
Manila RTC acquitted Uy from Estafa but was convicted for BP 22.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of the
Bouncing Checks Law
Whether the doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel applies
Held:
The RTC of Manila did not acquire jurisdiction.
No.
Ratio:
It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by the courts in criminal
cases, the offense should have been committed or anyone of its essential ingredients
took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The various dealings were held
in Manila, and thus the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the Estafa case.
However, there is no evidence that shows that jurisdiction over the BP 22 was
acquired. (related sa issue ng crimpro)
The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, under Rule 117 Sec.3, states that the
accused may move to quash the complaint or information on the ground of (b) the
court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the accused or the offense charged.
Sec. 8 of the same rule says that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he
did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, is deemed a
waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash. However, Section 3(b) states that an
exception to this is the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. In this
case, it cannot be said that Uy is estopped to question the jurisdiction of the RTC of
Manila even if she questioned it 5 years into the trial already. It can be questioned at
any stage of the proceeding.
EXCEPTIONS
Binay vs. Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
2 cases, one against Binay, another against Magsaysay
Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan 3 separate informations
against Binay for violation of Art 220 RPC, 2 violations of Sec3(e), RA3019, alleging
that these crimes were committed during Binay¶s incumbency in Makati
Sandiganbayan denied motion to quash - filing of charges to filing of information took
6 years thus denied his right to due process
Sandigan granted motion to suspend accused pendente lite and ordered him
suspended for 90 days
RA 7975 took effect redefining the jurisdiction of the Sandigan
Binay filed a motion to refer his case to the ³proper court´ for further proceedings,
alleging that the resolutions denying motion to quash and granting preventive
suspension were issued when the Sandiganbayan had already lost jurisdiction over
the subject cases (DENIED)
Municipal Mayor - classified as grade 27; at the time of the commission of the
offenses, Binay was municipal mayor, although he received salary less than that
received by grade 27, the compensation act was not yet in existence at the time of the
commission of the crime«At the time the act was passed, Binay was receiving salary
under grade 28
SC issued a TRO based on Binay¶s motion
Magsaysay-mayor of San Pascual, Batangas; charged w/ violation of RA3019, w/ the
RTC of Batangas; another info. was filed w/ the Sandiganbayan, for overpricing a
landscaping project
Magsaysay filed a motion to quash the info. w/ the Sandiganbayan-no jurisdiction over
the matter-DENIED
prosecutor Mallonga filed a petition w/ the RTC to refer the case to the
Sandiganbayan by virtue of RA7975
SC: it is the Sandiganbayan w/c has jurisdiction over the cases
*when RA7975 took effect, Binay had not yet been arraigned in the Sandiganbayan;
on the other hand, the RA was already in effect when the info. against Magsaysay was
filed w/ the RTC; while the cases were pending, RA8249 was enacted
ISSUE:
1. Had the sandigan been ousted of its jurisdiction over the case of municipal
mayor after the pages of RA 7975 coupled with the filing earlier of an

2B 2010
information for the same offense before the RTC having territorial
jurisdiction and venue of the commission of the offense
-Binay and Magsaysay contend that they do not come under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because
1) at the alleged time of the commission of the offenses, they were not classified as
grade 27;
2) municipal mayors are not included in the enumeration of Sec.4(a)(1) of PD1606 as
amended by RA7975;
3) congressional records reveal that the law did not intend municipal mayors to come
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; also contend that pay
scales determine salary grade classifications
HELD:
SANDIGANBAYAN RETAINS JURISDICTION OVER BINAY¶s CASE
the constitution states that in providing for the standardization of compensation of govt
officials and EEs, congress shall take into account the nature of the responsibilities
pertaining to, and the qualifications required for the positions;
RA6758 provides that differences in pay are to be based upon substantive differences
in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions; grade, as
defined in PD958: all classes of positions w/c, although different with kind of subject
matter or work, are sufficiently equivalent as to level of difficulty and responsibilities
and level of qualification requirements of the work to warrant the inclusion of such
classes of positions w/in one range of basic compensation; grade w/c determines
salary; possible that an official¶s salary may be less than prescribed for his grade«
to determine WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, reference should be made to
RA6758 and the index of occupational services, position titles and salary grades;
salary grade is a matter of law, not of proof; index lists municipal mayors under salary
grade 27, therefore, are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
«the rule is that where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over
a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not
affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another
tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or is
construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending
before its enactment. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no
retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the
enactment of the statute.
RA7975, Sec.7, belongs to the exception rather than the rule; the provision is
transitory in nature and expresses the legislature¶s intention to apply its provisions on
jurisdiction to criminal cases in w/c trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan
the trial of Binay had not yet begun as of the date of the approval of RA7975,
therefore, the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over the case
Binay invokes the rule that the jurisdiction of a court once it attaches cannot be ousted
by subsequent happenings or events, although of such character w/c would have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the 1
st
instance; filing of the info. in
Sandiganbayan-subsequent happening or event no application; RTC never had
jurisdiction over the case
estoppel cannot be successfully invoked; jurisdiction is determined by law, not by the
consent or agreement of the parties or by estoppel; estoppel remains the exception
rather than the rule
no double jeopardy when the accused enters a plea in a court that has no jurisdiction.
SANCHEZ and MANAGAY vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Petitioners are officers of the Philippine Army (PA). Lt. Col. Lino A. Sanchez at times
material hereto was Commanding Officer, 9th Post Engineer Detachment,
Headquarters and Headquarters Support Group (HHSG), Philippine Army. Major
Vicente S. Managay was G-4, HHSG, Philippine Army.
A pre-trial investigating officer, submitted a report to the Commanding General,
Philippine Army, stating that there was a prima facie case against petitioners for
violation of the Articles of War for causing the wrongful release of P599,547.00 for
payment of renovation of an office in the Phil. Army.
On the basis of the report, they initiated court martial proceedings against petitioners
before the Philippine Army Permanent General Court Martial. Both of the petitioners
were arraigned before the Court Martial and both pleaded not guilty.
The investigating officers also referred the findings to the Provincial Prosecutor while
there were court martial proceedings against the petitioners recommending the filing
of an information with the Sandiganbayan against petitioners for violation of R.A. No.
3019. The Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal endorsed the records to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman filed with Sandiganbayan information against them for the violating
the said RA. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction
and was denied through a resolution stating that the offenses charged in the court
martial are distinct and separate from each other. Thus, the petitioners were also
arraigned in Sandiganbayan and they pleaded not guilty.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial reiterating that the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case as the court martial had
acquired original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to R.A. No.
7055, and that the acts complained of in the charge sheet in the court martial
and the Information before the Sandiganbayan were the same or identical. The
Sandiganbayan denied the motion for lack of merit.

2B 2010
Hence, the petitioners filed the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue: W/N Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling:
No. Though the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction when the case was filed, it no longer
had jurisdiction over the case under RA 7975. This law removing the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan over the case was passed before the motion for reconsideration
was submitted. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction when the
motion for reconsideration was denied.
LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Adherence of Jurisdiction (Exceptions) & Action of the Court when determined that it
has no jurisdiction & Jurisdiction of the SB (Offense deemed committed in relation to
Public Office)
Facts:
11 persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, an
organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies, were slain by elements of the
Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). Petitioner Lacson and
petitioners-intervenors Acop and Zubia were members of ABRITG.
SPO2 de los Reyes exposed to the media that what actually happened
between the members of the Kuratong Baleleng and the ABRITG was a summary
execution (rub-out) and not a shoot-out. Ombudsman Desierto formed a panel to
investigate the incident. Upon investigation, all the PNP officers and personnel
allegedly involved in the incident were absolved from any criminal liability because it
was a legitimate police operation. However, a review board modified the panel¶s ruling
and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against 26 respondents,
including Lacson, Acop and Zubia. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation
and 11 informations for murder were filed against Lacson, as principal, Acop and
Zubia as accessories before the Sandiganbayan¶s Second Divisio
Upon motion by all the accused in the 11 informations, the SB allowed them
to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman¶s action. After a reinvestigation,
the Ombudsman filed 11 amended informations before the SB, wherein Lacson was
charged only as an accessory.
The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the SB,
asserting that under the amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of
the RTC pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. 7975. They said that the said law limited the
jurisdiction of the SB to cases where one or more of the ³principal accused´ are
government officials with Salary Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with the rank of
Chief Superintendent or higher. They did not qualify under the said requisites because
the highest ranking principal has the rank of only a Chief Inspector and none has the
equivalent of at least SG 27. Thus, the SB admitted the amended information and
ordered the cases transferred to the QC RTC, which has original and exclusive
jurisdiction under R.A. 7975.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor moved for a reconsideration, insisting
the cases should remain with the SB. Petitioner and some of the accused opposed.
Pending the motions for reconsideration, RA 8249 was approved amending
the jurisdiction of the SB by deleting the word ³principal´ from the phrase ³principal
accused´ in Section 2 (a & c) of R.A. 7975. Even before the issue of jurisdiction came
up with the filing of the amended informations, the house bill for that was already
introduced in Congress.
ISSUES:
WON Sections 4 & 7 of R.A. 8249 is unconstitutional.
WON the statute violates the petitioners¶ right to due process and equal protection
clause because the provisions seemed to have been designed for the Sandiganbayan
to continue to acquire jurisdiction over the case.
WON the statute is an ex-post facto law.
Whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayan¶s or Regional Trial Court¶s
jurisdiction.
WON the offense of multiply murder was committed in relation to the office of the
accused PNP officers, making the case fall within the Sandiganbayan¶s jurisdiction.
HELD:
SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF R.A. 8249 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.
The issue on due process and equal protection is too shallow to deseve merit.
There were no concrete evidence and convincing argument presented. The
classification made by the law was reasonable and not arbitrary.
There is nothing ex post facto in the statute. Generally, ex post facto laws
deal with the retroactive effect of penal laws and the said R.A. is procedural in
nature.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER
THE CASES.
For a case to be within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it must be
shown that the offense charged in the information was committed in relation to
the office of the accused.
In People v. Montejo, the court held that an offense is said to have been
committed in relation to the office if it is ³intimately connected´ with the office
of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official
functions. This ³intimacy´ must be alleged in the information, which is what
determines the jurisdiction of the court. What is controlling is the specific
factual allegations in the information that would show the close intimacy
between the discharge of the accused¶s official duties and the commission of
the offense charged. It does not even matter whether the phrase ³committed in
relation to his office´ appears in the information or not.

2B 2010
In the case at bar, what the amended information contains is a mere allegation
that the offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his
office and that is not sufficient. Such phrase is merely a conclusion of law.
Since it was not proven that the crime of murder was committed in the
discharge of their duties, the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the
cases.
I. Action of the court when determined that it has no jurisdiction
US v Morales
Facts: Morales was convicted of brigandage under Section 1 Act No. 518 by the CFI
in Manila. He contended, however, that CFI Manila has no jurisdiction on him
because he was arrested in Malabon and was subsequently brought to Manila from
their place of arrest contrary to Sec.1 Act No 518 which states that person guilty of
brigandage must be punished in the place in which they may be taken or from which
they may have fled.
Issue: Does CFI Manila have jurisdiction?
Held and Ruling: No, it does not have jurisdiction since Morales was arrested in
Malabon and not in Manila. Pursuant to Sec. 1 Act No. 518, they must be punished in
the place where they may be taken or where they may have fled.
SC Remanded the case to the proper court with jurisdiction.
RCBC V. ISNANI
FACTS:
Lolita Encelan filed a complaint, on 27 April 1994 (a few days after the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 7691), with the Makati Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), seeking to
recover from Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation the amount of $5,000.00 as
actual damage or its Philippine peso equivalent of approximately P137,675.00. RCBC
thereupon moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the
complaint was cognizable by the metropolitan trial court (in Metro Manila), not the
RTC, the principal demand prayed for not being in excess of Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P200,000).
RTC Judge Lucia V. Isnani, instead of dismissing the complaint, transferred, on 08
July 1994, the entire records of the case to the Metropolitan Trial Court ("MTC"). Upon
learning of the transfer, RCBC sought (with the MTC) a reconsideration thereof. On 16
September 1994, respondent MTC Judge Navarro-Quiambao issued an Order
denying the motion.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the complaint was properly filed with the RTC of Makati?
RULING:
Petition should be dismissed without prejudice to RCBC¶s instituting an original action
with the proper court of jurisdiction.
The complaint is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metro Manila MTCs. Instead of
ordering the transfer of the complaint to the MTC, respondent RTC judge, therefore,
should have dismissed the case prayed for by RCBC for lack of jurisdiction.
RATIO:
A. Civil actions and settlement of estate proceedings, testate or intestate, including the
grant of provisional remedies when warranted, where the value of the personal
property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00), or Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) in Metro
Manila, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs (the amount of which must be specifically alleged), shall, after
the effectivity of R.A. 7691, be filed with the metropolitan and municipal trial courts.
B. Civil actions or a settlement of estate proceedings, aforesaid, pending with regional
trial courts which have already reached the pretrial stage at the time of the effectivity
of R.A. 7691 shall remain with said courts for proper disposition. The transfer of
pending cases (which have already reached the pretrial stage) to metropolitan or
municipal trial courts may be allowed, however, provided the following conditions
concur; viz.:
(a) the case is cognizable by the municipal or metropolitan trial court under the
present provisions of the Act; and
(b) the parties agree to the transfer of the case from the regional trial court to
the municipal or metropolitan trial court.
C. R.A. 7691 took effect on 15 April 1994 or fifteen (15) days after its publication on 30
March 1994. Cases filed on or after such effectivity date must accord with the new
jurisdictional mandate; a disregard thereof shall constitute a ground for the dismissal
of the action or proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.
REPUBLIC VS. ASUNCION
FACTS:
Private Respondent Alexander Dionisio Y Manio, a member of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) assigned to the Central Police District Command Station 2 in Novaliches,
Quezon City, was dispatched by his Commanding Officer to Dumalay Street,
Novaliches to respond to a complaint that a person was creating trouble there.
Dionisio proceeded there, where he subsequently shot to death T/Sgt. Romeo
Sadang. Pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the Office of the City

2B 2010
Prosecutor filed a case with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City an
information charging Dioniso with the crime of homicide.
While trial was already in progress, the respondent Judge issued an order, motu
propio, an order requiring the prosecution and the defense to comment on whether the
Court should still proceed with the trial of the case. ³In view of the decision of the SC
in the case of Deloso vs. Domingo, the Sandiganbayn has jurisdiction over offenses
committed by public officers when the penalty prescribed by law for the offense id
higher than prision correcional. The murder charge against petitioner carries the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death hence it is cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan, and the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate it.´
Respondent Judge dismissed the Criminal Case ³for re-filing with the Sandiganbayan´
on the ground that the Sandiganbayan, and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the
case. Private prosecutor moved for reconsideration, citing the opinion of the Secretary
of Justice that ³crimes committed by PNP members are not cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan´ because ³they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular
courts´ as provided in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 and ³the Sandiganbayan is not a
regular court but a special court.´ The respondent judge denied the motion.
Hence this petition
ISSUE:
Whether or not R.A. NO. 6975 VESTS THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN
CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING PNP MEMEBERS ONLY IN THE ³REGULAR
COURTS´ WHICH EXCLUDES THE SANDIGANBAYAN SINCE IT IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY AND STATUTORILY A ³SPECIAL COURT´.
RATIO:
INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM ³REGULAR COURTS´ IN R.A. 6975
Police forces have traditionally been under the civil authority. The overwhelming
sentiment of the framers of the 1987 Constitution against martial law regime and the
militarization of the police forces prompted them to explicitly direct the establishment
and maintenance of one police force.
R.A No. 6975 on the PNP are intended to implement Section 6, Article XVI of the 1987
Constitution, ³national in scope and civilian in character. This civilian character is
unqualified and unconditional and is therefore, all-embracing. The Declaration of
Policy (Section 2) of R.A. No. 6975 faithfully carried out this mandate. The civilian
character refers to its orientation and structure. The mandate of Section 46 R.A 6975
is to divest courts-martial of any jurisdiction over criminal cases involving PNP
members and to return or transfer that jurisdiction to the civil courts and was explicitly
provided for in the original Section 68 of the House Bill No. 23614. The terms civil
courts and regular courts were used interchangeably or were considered as
synonymous by the Bicameral Conference Committee and then by the Senate and
House of Representatives. Accordingly, the term regular courts in Section 46 of R.A.
No. 6975 means civil courts. There could have been no other meaning intended since
the primary purpose of the law is to remove from courts-martial the jurisdiction over
criminal cases involving members of the PNP.
IS SANDIGANBAYAN INCLUDED IN THAT TERM
Regular Courts are those within the judicial department of the government, namely,
the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. Per Section
16, Chapter 4, Book II of the Administrative Code of 1987, such lower courts ³include
the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts,
Shar¶a District Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, and Shari¶a Circuit Courts. The Sandiganbayan was created by
P.D. No. 1486 pursuant to the mandate of Section 5, Article xiii of the 1973
Constitution. This was revised by P.D. 1606 and amended by P.D. 1860 then 1861.
Under the amendments introduced by P.D. No. 1861, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the following cases: ³a. Exclusive original jurisdiction: Violations of
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, R.A. 1379, and Chapter 2 Title VII of the RPC; 2.
Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to
their office«b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction ´
Undoubtedly then, Sandiganbayan is a regular court and is thus included in the term
regular courts of Sec. 46 R.A. No. 6975. Courts of special jurisdiction, which are
permanent in character, are also regular courts. The Sandiganbayan is a court with
special jurisdiction because its creation as a permanent anti-graft court is
constitutionally mandated and its jurisdiction is limited to certain classes of offenses
This is further strongly indicated by Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1606 which vests upon it ³all the
inherent powers of a court of justice´ and places it on ³the same level as the Court of
Appeals,´ and by Section 4 thereof, as amended by P.D. No. 1861, which grants it
appellate jurisdiction over certain case decided by the RTC, MeTC, MTC, and MCTC.
***That the public officers or employees committed the crime in relation to
their office must, however, be alleged in the information for the Sandiganbayan to
have jurisdiction over a case under Sec. 4(a)(2). This allegation is necessary because
of the unbending rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the
information.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING the respondent Judge to
conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether the crime charged was committed
by the private respondent in relation to his office and
1. If it was in relation to his office, DIRECTING the respondent judge to
transmit the records of the case to the Sandiganbayan which shall docket
and proceed with the case as if the same were originally filed with it; or
If he determines otherwise, DIRECTING him to set aside the Challenged Orders, to
proceed with the hearing of the case and to render judgment thereon.
Cunanan v. Arceo
There was a fistfight between victim and 2 other people which resulted to death of
victim. An information for murder was filed at the RTC of Pampanga against Cunanan.
It did not allege that Cunanan was in performance of his official functions. He was
arraigned and trial was completed. Before rendering decision, the judge ordered that
the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The judge issued another order stating
that the case be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan ³as if it was originally filed with the
Sandiganbayan´ following jurisprudence laid down in Republic v. Asuncion. The

2B 2010
petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal contending that the
information filed did not contain any averment that the crime was committed in relation
to his office.
Issue: W/N RTC judges correctly applied the doctrine of Asuncion, considering that
the absence of jurisdiction of RTC became apparent only after completion of trial and
submission of case for decision.
Held/Ratio: Yes, order for dismissal and transfer was correct. Even if the information
failed to include that the petitioner was in performance of his official functions, the fact
was proven during trial.
There are only two requisites for Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction based on the
law: (a) that the crime was committed by a public officer in relation to his office and (b)
that the crime has a penalty higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for more
than 6 years or a fine greater than 6,000.
Petitioner also cannot use the defense of double jeopardy, RTC never had jurisdiction
over the case. The order of dismissal is not equal to acquittal. His trial in
Sandiganbayan will be his first jeopardy.
Lacson v. Executive Secretary
Facts stated above.
Issue/doctrine relevant to action of court when it determines that it has no jurisdiction:
Cuyco v. Sandiganbayan
Discussed above.
Petitioner contends that at the time of the commission of the offense in 1992, he was
occupying the position of Director II, Salary Grade 26, hence, jurisdiction over the
cases falls with the Regional Trial Court.
[10]
We sustain petitioner's contention.
The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a) and (e),
Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, unless committed by public officials and
employees occupying positions of regional director and higher with Salary Grade "27"
or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic
Act No. 6758) in relation to their office.
In ruling in favor of its jurisdiction, even though petitioner admittedly occupied the
position of Director II with Salary Grade "26" under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), the Sandiganbayan incurred in
serious error of jurisdiction, and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in suspending petitioner from office, entitling petitioner to the reliefs
prayed for.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition for certiorari and ANNULS the
resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, issued on August 5, 1998, September 21, 1998,
and December 16, 1998, in Criminal Case Nos. 23016 and 23017, and makes the
temporary restraining order permanent.
The Court orders the Sandiganbayan to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. 23016 and
23017, for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Ombudsman may re-file the cases with
the court of proper jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga City, and inform
this Court of the action taken hereon within ten (10) days from finality.
J. Jurisdiction over Dangerous Drugs cases
MORALES V. CA
Petitioner: Ernesto Morales
Respondents: Court of Appeals, Hon. Alfredo Gustilo, as presiding judge of RTC, and
People of the Philippines
Facts
Petitioner was charged for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 in an
information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). He then filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground the penalty for the offense charged should not exceed prision
correccional or six years¶ worth of imprisonment and that it is the Metropolitan Trial
Court that has jurisdiction over the case.
In denying this motion, the RTC reasons out that, while MTC has exclusive jurisdiction
over cases with penalties of not more than six years of imprisonment, an exception is
provided in the said Act. It provides the Court of First Instance (currently, the RTC)
shall have ³concurrent original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable under the Act.´
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). CA
dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction over the case.
Hence, this petition
In raising the same to SC, petitioner furthers that, since only about 0.5 gram of shabu
was involved, the imposable penalty would not exceed prision correccional. Therefore,
RTC doesn¶t have jurisdiction over his case. The proper penalty was only
Issue
Whether RTC has jurisdiction to try petitioner¶s alleged violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.
W/N the CA has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court where the issue is the jurisdiction of respondent RTC judge to try the
alleged violation of RA 6425.
Held
Petition is GRANTED, but only insofar as the issue of jurisdiction of respondent Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40670 is concerned. The Resolutions of 8 August and

2B 2010
13 September 1996 of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE, while the challenged
orders in Criminal Case No. 96-8443 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch
116, are AFFIRMED. The trial court is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with the trial of
Criminal Case No. 96-8443 with all reasonable dispatch.
Yes, RTC has jurisdiction.
CA had jurisdiction over the petitioner¶s special civil action for certiorari.
Ratio
Section 32 of RA 7691 reads:
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. ² Except in cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan, the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
shall exercise:
(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 accessory or other penalties, including the
civil liability arising from such offender or predicated thereon, irrespective of
kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.
It must be noted, however, that the exclusive jurisdiction of these courts does not
cover those cases which, by law, fall within the RTC¶s and Sandiganbayan¶s exclusive
jurisdiction, regardless of the prescribed penalty. In the case at bar, the Dangerous
Drugs Act specifically confers upon the RTC the jurisdiction over cases such as this.
Appellate jurisdiction refers to a process which is but a continuation of the original suit,
not a commencement of a new action, such as that of a special civil action for
certiorari. Though the most logical step was for SC to simply set aside the resolutions
and direct it to CA, SC agrees that it would further delay the case. Also, SC has has
concurrent jurisdiction over the special action.
K. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 as amended by RA 7691.
Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. ² 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.
L. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts
Sec. 25. Establishment of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. ² There shall be created a Metropolitan Trial Court in
each metropolitan area established by law, a Municipal Trial Court in each of the other
cities or municipalities, and a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in each circuit comprising
such cities and/or municipalities as are grouped together pursuant to law.
Sec. 26. Qualifications. ² No person shall be appointed judge of a Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, at least 30 years of age, and, for at least five years, has
been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines, or has held a public office in the
Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite.
Sec. 27. Metropolitan Trial Courts of the National Capital Region. ² There shall be a
Metropolitan Trial Court in the National Capital Region, to be known as the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Manila, which shall be composed of eighty-two (82)
branches. There shall be:
Thirty branches (Branches I to XXX) for the city of Manila with seats thereat;
Thirteen branches (Branches XXXI to XLIII) for Quezon City with seats thereat;
Five branches (Branches XLIV to XLVIII) for Pasay City with seats thereat;
Five branches (Branches XLIX to LIII) for Caloocan City with seats thereat;
One branch (Branch LIV) for Navotas with seat thereat;
Two branches (Branches LV and LVI) for Malabon with seats thereat;
Two branches (Branches LVII and LVIII) for San Juan with seats thereat;
Two branches (Branches LIX and LX) for Mandaluyong with seats thereat;
Seven branches (Branches LXI and LXVII) for Makati with seats thereat;
Five branches (Branches LXVIII to LXXII) for Pasig with seats thereat;
One branch (Branch LXXIII) for Pateros with seat thereat;
One branch (Branch LXXIV) for Taguig with seat thereat;
Two branches (Branches LXXV and LXXVI) for Marikina with seats thereat;
Two branches (Branches LXXVII and LXXVIII) for Parañaque with seats thereat;
One branch (Branch LXXIX) for Las Piñas with seat thereat;
One branch (Branch LXXX) for Muntinlupa with seat thereat;
Two branches (Branches LXXXI and LXXXII) for Valenzuela with seats thereat;
Sec. 28. Other Metropolitan Trial Courts. ² The Supreme Court shall constitute
Metropolitan Trial Courts in such other metropolitan areas as may be established by
law whose territorial jurisdiction shall be co-extensive with the cities and municipalities
comprising the metropolitan area.
Every Metropolitan Trial Judge shall be appointed to a metropolitan area which shall
be his permanent station and his appointment shall state branch of the court and the
seat thereof to which he shall be originally assigned. A Metropolitan Trial Judge may
be assigned by the Supreme Court to any branch within said metropolitan area as the
interest of justice may require, and such assignment shall not be deemed an
assignment to another station within the meaning of this section.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GUIDE

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GUIDE

Semelhante a CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GUIDE (20)

Último

Último (20)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GUIDE