hears them impartially and renders

judgment only after trial (system of

procedure in the Philippines)

Criminal Procedure
Chapter I: Preliminary Considerations
I.

Basic Concepts
1.

Criminal procedure treats of (a) the

series of processes by which the criminal
laws are enforced and (b) by which the
State prosecutes persons who violates the
penal laws.

People v. Lacson. Criminal procedure

regulates the steps by which one who
committed a crime is to be punished
Criminal Law
Defines crimes and
prescribe penalties for
such crimes

2.

3.

Criminal Procedure
Lays down the
processes by which an
offender is made to
answer for the
violation of criminal
laws

Blacks Law Dictionary. Criminal

procedure is a generic term to describe
the network of laws and rules which
governs the procedural administration of
justice
Starts with the initial contact of the
alleged lawbreaker with the justice
machinery including the investigation of
the crime
Concludes either with a judgment
exonerating the accused or the final
imposition of a penalty against him.
In the prosecution for the violation of the
penal laws, criminal procedure has the
imposing task of balancing clashing
societal interests primarily between
those of the government and those of
the individual.

Due Process; Mandatory

In this system, the accusation starts with a
formal indictment called in our jurisdiction
as a complaint or an information, the
allegations of which must be proven by the
government beyond reasonable doubt.
The government and the accused present
their evidence before the court which shall
decide either on acquittal or conviction of
the accused
In its decision-making process, that court
shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered
The court in the system therefore, has a
passive role and relies largely on the
evidence presented both sides to the
action in order to reach a verdict

2.

Inquisitorial system The court plays a

very active role and is not limited to the
evidence presented before it

The court may utilize evidence gathered

outside the court and a judge or a group of
judges under this system actively
participates in the gathering of facts and
evidence instead of mere passively
receiving information or evidence from the
parties.
The judge steers the course of the
proceedings by directing and supervising
the gathering of the evidence and the
questioning of the witnesses of the case.
Counsels have less active role than in the
adversarial system.

Liberal Interpretation of the Rules

The Adversarial and Accusatorial System

Rule 1, Sec. 6. Construction These Rules

shall be liberally construed in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.

1.

1.

Queto v. Catolico. Adversarial or

accusatorial system contemplates two
contending parties before the court which

liberty due to a procedural lapse is great, a

relaxation of the Rules was warranted.

Cariaga v. People, (2010). Since the

appeal involved a criminal case and the
possibility of a person being deprived of

Albert v. University Publishing House,

(1965). Due process in criminal proceedings is
mandatory and indispensable and cannot be
met without the proverbial law which hears
before it condemns and proceeds upon inquiry
and renders judgment only after trial
Alonte v. Savellano. Requirements of Due
Process in Criminal Proceedings:
(a) That the court or tribunal trying the case is
properly clothed with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it;
(b) That jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it
over the person of the accused;
(c) That the accused is given opportunity to
heard;
(d) That judgment is rendered only upon lawful
hearing
A. Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal
Jurisdiction
Cruz v. CA. Requisites before a court can
acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases:
(a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter
(b) Jurisdiction over the territory
(c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter vs.
Jurisdiction over the Person of the
Accused
1.

2.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

refers to the authority of the court to hear
and determine a particular criminal case.
The offense is one which the court is by law
authorized to take cognizance.
Jurisdiction over the person of the
accused refers to the authority of the
court, not over the subject matter of the
criminal litigation, but over the person
charged.

Antiporda v. Garchitorena. This kind of

jurisdiction requires that the person charged
with the offense must have been brought in to
its forum for trial, (1) forcibly by warrant of
arrest or (2) upon his voluntary submission to
the court

4.

Jurisdiction over the Territory; Venue in

Criminal Cases

The court cannot take jurisdiction over a

person charged with an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory and
if the evidence adduced during the trial shows
that the offense was committed somewhere
else, the court should dismiss the action for
want of jurisdiction.

1.

Antiporda v. Garchitorena. This element

requires that the offense must have been
committed within the courts territorial
jurisdiction.

Macasaet v. People. Territorial

jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to
take cognizance or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the
accused.

1.
2.

3.

4.
5.

Fullero v. People. This fact is to be

determined by the facts alleged in the
complaint or information as regards the place
where the offense charged was committed.
Barrameda v. CA. In all criminal prosecutions,
the action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality or territory (1)
wherein the offense was committed or (2)
where anyone of the essential ingredients took
place.
2.

Venue in criminal cases is an essential

element of jurisdiction.

Rule 110, Sec. 15(a). Subject to existing

laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or territory
where the offense was committed or where any
of its essential ingredients occurred.
3.

Campanano v. Datuin, (2007). It is

doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an
essential element of jurisdiction, and that
the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal
case is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information.

Purpose: Not to compel the defendant to

move to, and appear in, a different court from
that of the province where the crime was
committed as it would cause him great
inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and
other evidence in another place.

5.

Isip v. People. The concept of venue in

actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil
cases is jurisdictional for jurisdiction to be
acquired in criminal cases, the offense
should have been committed or any of its
essential elements should have taken place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court

Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v.

Supergreen, Inc. The RTC of Manila has no
authority to issue a search warrant for offenses
committed in Cavite.
When a Court has Jurisdiction to Try
Offenses Not Committed within its
Territorial Jurisdiction

Should commit an offense while on a

Philippine ship or airship
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;
Should be liable for acts connected with
the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding number;
While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code.

Crimes against National Security

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Treason
Conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
Misprision of treason
Espionage
Inciting to war and giving motive of
reprisals
Violation of neutrality
Correspondence with Hostile Country
Flight to Enemys Country

Crimes against the Law of Nations

GR: The offense must be prosecuted and tried
in the place where the same was committed.
XPN:
1. Rule 110, Sec. 15(d). Crimes committed
outside the Philippines but punishable
under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
shall be cognizable by the court where the
criminal action is first filed.
RPC, Art. 2. Application of its provisions Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provisions of this
Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime
zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against
those who:

1.
2.
3.

Piracy
Mutiny
Qualified Piracy

2. 1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(4).

The SC orders a change of venue or place
of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice
3. Rule 110, Sec. 15(b). Where an offense
is committed in a train, aircraft, or other
public or private vehicle while in the course
of its trip, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the (1) court of any
municipality or territory where such train,
aircraft or other vehicle passed during such
its trip, (2) including the place of its
departure and arrival.
4. Rule 110, Sec. 15(c). Where an offense is
committed on board a vessel in the course

of its voyage, the criminal action shall be

instituted and tried (1) in the court of the
first port of entry or (2) of any municipality
or territory where the vessel passed during
such voyage, subject to the generally
accepted principles of international law.
5. Subido v. Sandiganbayan. Where the
case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
the jurisdiction of which depends upon the
nature of the offense and the position of
the accused, the offense need not be tried
in the place where the act was committed
but where the courts actually sits in
Quezon City.
R.A. 8249, Sec. 2. Official Station; Place of
Holding Sessions - The Sandiganbayan shall
have its principal office in the Metro Manila
area and shall hold sessions thereat for the trial
and determination of cases filed with it:
Provided, however, That cases originating from
the principal geographical regions of the
country, that is, from Luzon, Visayas or
Mindanao, shall be heard in their respective
regions of origin except only when the greater
convenience of the accused and of the
witnesses, or other compelling considerations
require the contrary, in which instance a case
originating from one geographical region may
be heard in another geographical region:
Provided, further, That for this purpose
the presiding justice shall authorize any
divisions of the court to hold sessions at
any time and place outside Metro Manila
and, where the interest of justice so
requires, outside the territorial
boundaries of the Philippines. The
Sandiganbayan may require the services
of the personnel and the use of facilities
of the courts or other government offices
where any of the divisions is holding
sessions and the personnel of such courts
or offices shall be subject to the orders of
the Sandiganbayan.
2012 Bar, Q. 16: A criminal case should be
instituted and tried in the place where
the offense or any of the essential
elements took place, except in:
a.

Estafa cases;

b.
c.
d.

Complex crimes;
Cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan;
Court martial cases.

A: Territorial jurisdiction is immaterial in cases

falling under the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction.
All public officials who committed an offense
which is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall
be tried before it regardless of the place of
commission of the offense. In addition, the
court martial is not a criminal court.
6. Art. 360, RPC, as amended by, R.A.
1289 and R.A. 4363. Where the offense
is written defamation, the criminal
action need not necessarily be filed with
the RTC of the province or city where the
alleged libelous article was printed and first
published. It may be filed in the province or
city where the offended party held office at
the time of the commission of the offense
if he is a public officer, or in the province
or city where he actually resided at the
time of the commission of the offense in
case the offended party is a private
individual.
7. Agbayani v. Sayo. Restated Art. 360 of
the RPC (written defamation) as follows.
(a) Whether the offended party is a public
official or a private person, the criminal
action maybe filed in the CFI (now RTC) of
the province or city where the libelous
article is printed or first published
(b) If the offended party is a private
individual, the criminal action may also
be filed in the CFI (now RTC) of the
province where he actually resided at the
time of the commission of the offense
(c) If the offended party is a public officer
whose office is in Manila at the time of
the commission of the offense, the
action may be filed in the CFI (RTC) of
Manila
(d) If the offended officer is a public officer
holding office outside of Manila, the
action may be filed in the CFI (RTC) of the
province or city where he held office at the
time of the commission of the offense.

In circumstances mentioned in (a)

above, the information must allege with
particularity where the defamatory article
was printed and first published, as
evidenced or supported by, for instance,
the address of their editorial or business
offices in the case of newspapers,
magazines or serial publications. This precondition becomes necessary in order to
forestall any inclination to harass.

Bonifacio et. al. v. RTC of Makati. In a case

pertaining to defamatory material appearing
on a website on the internet, the place where
the material was first accessed cannot be
equated with printing and first publication
Foz Jr. v. People. Merely alleging that the
newspaper is a daily publication with a
considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and
throughout the region did not establish that
the said publication was first printed and first
published in Iloilo.
Merely alleging that the offended party is
a physician and medical practitioner in a
particular place does not clearly and
positively indicate that said person is residing
in such place at the time of the commission of
the crime. One who transacts business in a
place and spends a considerable time thereat
does not render such person a resident therein.
B. Criminal Jurisdiction over the Subject
Matter
1.

Gomez v. Montalban. Jurisdiction is the

right to act or the power or authority to
hear and determine a cause it is a
question of law

It imports the power and authority to hear and

determine issues of facts and of law, the power
to inquire into the facts, to apply the law and to
pronounce judgment
Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena. Criminal
jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a
particular offense and impose the punishment
for it.

2.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

is the power to hear and determine cases
of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong.

It is the power to deal with the general subject

involved in the action, and means not simply
jurisdiction over the particular case then
occupying the attention of the court but
jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the
particular case belongs.
How Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
is Conferred
1. By law. It is the law that confers
jurisdiction and not the rules. In order to
ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction
or not, the provisions of law shall be
inquired into.
De Jesus v. Garcia. When the law confers
jurisdiction, that conferment must be clear. It
cannot be presumed. It must clearly appear
from the statute or will not be held to exist.
2. Tolentino v. Social Security
Commission. Jurisdiction cannot be
fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be
acquired or diminished by any act of the
parties.
3. Fukuzume v. People. Jurisdiction over the
subject matter in a criminal case cannot
be conferred upon the court by the
accused, express waiver or otherwise,
since such jurisdiction is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organized the
court, and is given only by law in the
manner and form prescribed by law.
4. Cudia v. CA. Since it is conferred by law, it
is not conferred by mere administrative
policy of any trial court.

Mobilia Products v. Umezawa, (2005). In

order to determine jurisdiction in criminal
cases, the complaint or information must be
examined for the purpose of ascertaining (a)
WON the facts set out therein and (b) the
punishment provided for by law for such acts
falls within the jurisdiction of the court in which
the criminal action is filed.
2.

3.

Pangilinan v. CA. It is the averments in

the information which characterizes the
crime to be prosecuted and the court
before which it must be tried.
Lacson v. Executive Secretary.
Jurisdiction of the court is determined by
the allegations in the complaint or
information, and not by the evidence
adduced during the trial.

Statute Applicable to Criminal Action

1.

2.

3.

Macasaet v. People. If the evidence adduced

during the trial shows that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court should
dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
U.S. v. Jimenez. The court must examine the
complaint for the purpose of ascertaining
whether or not (1) the fact set out and (2)
punishment provided by law for such act, fall
within the jurisdiction of the court.
4.

5.

Uy v. Sandiganbayan. In cases
cognizable by Sandiganbayan, both (1) the
nature of the offense and (2) the
position occupied by the accused are
conditions sine qua non before the
Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance
of the case.
Cuyos v. Garcia. In complex crimes,
jurisdiction is with the court having
jurisdiction to impose the maximum
and most serious penalty imposable on
the offense forming part of the complex
crimes.

How Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

is Determined

2003 Bar, Q. XIII: In complex crimes, how

is the jurisdiction of a court determined?

1.

A: In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the

whole complex crime must be lodged with the
trial court having jurisdiction to impose the

Jurisdiction over criminal cases is

determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information.

maximum and most serious penalty

imposable on an offense forming part of the
complex crime. (Cuyos v. Garcia, 1999)

Palana v. People, (2007). Jurisdiction is

determined by law in force at the time of
the institution of the action and not
during the arraignment of the accused
People v. Lagon. The statute in force
at the time of the institution of the
action and not at the time of its
commission determines jurisdiction, even if
the penalty that may be imposed at the
time of its commission is less and does not
fall under the courts jurisdiction.
People v. Sandiganbayan, (2009). The
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to try a
criminal case is to be determined at the
time of the institution of the action (1999),
not at the time of the commission of the
offense (2004).

Use of Imposable Penalty

1.

2.

People v. Purisima, (1982) In

determining WON the court has jurisdiction
over an offense, we consider the penalty
which may be imposed and not the
actual penalty imposed after the trial.
People v. Buissan. Jurisdiction is
determined by (1) the extent of the
penalty which the law imposes for the
offense, (2) on the basis of facts alleged in
the information or complaint

Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction or

Continuing Jurisdiction
1. Continuing jurisdiction once a court has
acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
continues until the court has done all that it
can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
People v. Chupeco, (1964). Jurisdiction,
once vested, cannot be withdrawn or defeated
by a subsequent valid amendment of the
information.

Rilloraza v. Arciaga, (1967). It cannot be

lost by a new law amending the rules of
jurisdiction.
2.

3.

Flores v. Sumaljag. The court was held

not to have lost jurisdiction over the case
involving a public official by the mere fact
that the said official ceased to be in office
during the pendency of the case.
People v. Cawaling. GR: Jurisdiction is
not affected by a subsequent legislation
vesting jurisdiction over such proceeding in
another tribunal.

XPN:

A: No. The court can never lose jurisdiction so

long as its decision has not yet been fully
implemented and satisfied. Finality of a
judgment cannot operate to divest a court of
its jurisdiction. The court retains an interest in
seeing the proper execution and
implementation of its judgments, and to that
extent, may issue such orders necessary and
appropriate for these purposes. (Echegaray v.
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 13205, January
19, 1999. Besides, there is a supervening event
which renders execution unnecessary (So v.
CA, 2002)

(1) When the statute expressly so provides,

or
(2) is construed to the effect that it is
intended to operate upon actions
pending before its enactment.

1993 Bar, Q. XI: Judge Villamor was the

Presiding Judge of the RTC of QC (Branch
50), in the criminal case for qualified theft
against Ding. After trial. Judge Villamor
acquitted Ding of the charge.

Jalandoni v. Drilon. Once a complaint or

information is filed in court, any disposition of
the case such as its dismissal or continuance
rests on the sound discretion of the court

Subsequently, Paterno, the complaining

witness in the aforesaid criminal case,
filed a civil action for damages against
Judge Villamor for knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment when he acquitted Ding
of the qualified theft. The case was filed
in the RTC of Pasay City (Branch 100)
presided over by Judge Villegas. Judge
Villamor filed a motion to dismiss the civil
case for lack of authority on the part of
RTC of Pasay City (Branch 100) to review
his (Judge Villamor) decision.

Pilapil v. Garchitorena. Even if the

prosecution files a motion to withdraw the
information, the court may grant or deny the
same in the faithful exercise of its judicial
prerogative.
2005 Bar, Q. XII(a): Mariano was convicted
by the RTC for raping Victoria and meted
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. While
serving sentence at the National
Penitentiary, Mariano and Victoria were
married. Mariano filed a motion in said
court for his release from the penitentiary
on his claim that under R.A. No. 8353, his
marriage to Victoria extinguished the
criminal action against him for rape, as
well as the penalty imposed on him.
However, the court denied the motion on
the ground that it had lost jurisdiction
over the case after its decision had
become final and executory.
Is the filing of the court correct? Explain.

How should the motion dismiss be

resolved? Why?
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted.
The RTC of Pasay City has no authority to
review the decision of Judge Villamor acquitting
Ding. To allow Judge Villegas to proceed with
the action for damages against Judge Villamor,
a co-equal judge of a co-equal court would in
effect permit a court to review and interfere
with the Judgment of a co-equal court over
which it has no appellate Jurisdiction or power
to review. (Villamor vs. Solas)

Alternative: The motion to dismiss should be

denied. Since the criminal case was terminated
with the acquittal of Ding, the civil action for
damages against Judge Villamor for knowingly
rendering an unjust Judgment may properly be
filed with the RTC of Pasay City having
jurisdiction thereof.

Dismissal on Jurisdictional Grounds;

Special Appearance
1.

2.

Fukuzume v. People. An objection based

on the ground that the court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised or considered motu proprio by the
court at any stage of the proceedings or on
appeal.
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan. A special
appearance before the court to challenge
the jurisdiction of the court over the person
is not tantamount to estoppels or a waiver
of the objection and is not voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

Raising the Issue of Jurisdiction for the

First Time in the SC
1.

2.

Fukuzume v. People. An accused is not

precluded from raising the issue of
jurisdiction of the trial court over the
offense charged because the issue may be
raised or considered motu proprio by the
court at any stage of the proceedings or on
appeal.
Antiporda v. Garchitorena. A party
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court
to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question
that same jurisdiction.

People v. Munar. After voluntarily submitting

a cause and encountering an adverse decision
on the merits, it is too late for the loser to
question the jurisdiction or power of the court.
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. A party may be
stopped for reasons of public policy as when he
initially invokes the jurisdiction of the court and
the later on repudiates that same jurisdiction.

Pangilinan v. CA. Even on appeal, and even if

the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of
jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not
precluded from ruling that the lower court had
no jurisdiction over the case.
Foz, Jr. v. People, (2009). For Tijam v.
Sibanghanoy to be applied to a criminal case,
the factual circumstances which justified the
application of the bar by laches, must be
present in the case.
C. Criminal Jurisdiction Over the Person
of the Accused
1.

Valdepenas v. People. Jurisdiction over

the person of the accused is acquired upon
(1) his arrest or apprehension, with or
without a warrant, or (2) his voluntary
appearance or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.

Sapugay v. CA. GR: Seeking affirmative relief

is deemed to be a submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
Santiago v. Vasquez. The voluntary
submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of
the court may be effected (1) by filing a motion
to quash, (2) appearing for arraignment, (3)
participating in the trial or (4) by giving bail.
2. Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan. The
assertion that the court never acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
because the warrant of arrest issued is null
and void because no probable cause was
found by the court issuing it, cannot be
sustained because he posted bail. The
giving or posting of bail by the
accused is tantamount to submission
of his person to the jurisdiction of the
court. Even if it is conceded that the
warrant issued was void, the defendant
waived all his rights to object by appearing
and giving a bond.
People v. Rivera, (2009). By submitting
oneself to the jurisdiction of the court, as
shown by entering into a counsel-assisted plea,

the active participation in the trial and

presenting evidence for the defense, the
accused is deemed to have waived his
constitutional protection against illegal arrest.
3.

Miranda v. Tuliao, (2006). Not all acts

seeking affirmative relief would constitute
a voluntary appearance or submission to
the jurisdiction of the court.

Making a special appearance in court to

question the jurisdiction of the court over
the person of the accused is not a
voluntary appearance as when in a criminal
case a motion to quash is filed precisely on
that ground.
There is no submission to the jurisdiction
of the court when the accused files a
motion to quash the warrant of arrest
because it is the very legality of the court
process forcing the submission of the person of
the accused that is the very issues in a motion
to quash a warrant of arrest.
4.

Miranda v. Tuliao. Being in the custody of

law is not necessarily being under the
jurisdiction of the court such as when a
person arrested by virtue of a warrant files
a motion before arraignment to quash the
warrant.

One can be subject to the jurisdiction of the

court, and yet to be in the custody of law, as
when an accused escapes custody after trial
has commenced
Custody of the law is literally custody over
the body of the accused. It includes, but is not
limited to, detention.
D. Injunction to Restrain Criminal
Prosecution
GR: The Court will not issue writs of prohibition
or injunction preliminary or final, to enjoin or
restrain, criminal prosecution. It will not lie
when the case is still at the stage of
preliminary investigation or reinvestigation.

XPN: Camanag v. Guerrero.

(1) When the injunction is necessary to afford
adequate protection (AAP) to the
constitutional rights of the accused
(2) When it is necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of action;
(3) When there is a prejudicial question which
is subjudice (under judgment; or under
consideration);
(4) When the acts of the officer are without or
in excess of authority
(5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid
law, ordinance or regulation; (LOR)
(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over
the offense
(8) Where it is a case of persecution rather
than prosecution
(9) Where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
(10)
When there is clearly no prima facie
case against the accused and a motion to
quash on that ground has been denied.
1999 Bar, Q. XII(c): Will injunction lie to
restrain the commencement of a criminal
action? Explain.
1989 Bar, Q. XII: May the prosecution of a
criminal case be enjoined? Explain.
E. Mandamus to Compel Prosecution
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v.
Reynaldo and Adrandea, (2010).
Mandamus is a remedial measure for parties
aggrieved. It shall issue when "any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust or station." The writ of
mandamus is not available to control discretion
neither may it be issued to compel the exercise
of discretion. Truly, it is a matter of discretion
on the part of the prosecutor to determine
which persons appear responsible for the
commission of a crime.

However, the moment he finds one to be

so liable it becomes his inescapable duty
to charge him therewith and to prosecute
him for the same. In such a situation, the
rule loses its discretionary character and
becomes mandatory.

A: No. The public prosecutor may not be

compelled by mandamus to file the case in
court because the determination of probable
cause is within the discretion of the prosecutor.
The remedy is an appeal to the Secretary of
Justice (Rule 112, Sec. 4)

If despite the sufficiency of the evidence before

the prosecutor, he refuses to file the
corresponding information against the person
responsible, he abuses his discretion. His act is
tantamount to a deliberate refusal to perform a
duty enjoined by law. The Secretary of Justice,
on the other hand, gravely abused his
discretion when, despite the existence of
sufficient evidence for the crime of estafa as
acknowledged by the investigating prosecutor,
he completely ignored the latters finding and
proceeded with the questioned resolution
anchored on purely evidentiary matters in utter
disregard of the concept of probable cause as
pointed out in Balangauan. To be sure, findings
of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to
review unless shown to have been made with
grave abuse. The present case calls for the
application of the exception.

1991 Bar, Q. XI(b): After reviewing the

record of a preliminary investigation of a
homicide case, the Secretary of Justice
reversed the resolution of the Provincial
Prosecutor and directed the latter to
move for the dismissal of the Information
which had been filed in the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig. The Provincial Prosecutor
thus filed such motion.

Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded

wide latitude of discretion in the conduct
of a preliminary investigation. By way of
exception, however, judicial review is allowed
where respondent has clearly established that
the prosecutor committed grave abuse of
discretion that is, when he has exercised his
discretion "in an arbitrary, capricious,
whimsical or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, patent and gross
enough as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a
duty enjoined by law."
1999 Bar, Q. XII(b): A filed with the Office
of the Fiscal a Complaint for estafa
against B. After the preliminary
investigation, the Fiscal dismissed the
Complaint for lack of merit. May the Fiscal
be compelled by mandamus to file the
case in court? Explain.

If the judge refuses to grant the

Provincial Prosecutor's motion to dismiss,
may a special civil action for mandamus
lie to compel the Judge to grant the
motion?
A: No, mandamus will not lie because the court
has discretion whether to grant or deny the
motion.
2015 Bar, Q. XI(b): The Ombudsman found
probable cause to charge with plunder
the provincial governor, vice governor,
treasurer, budget officer, and accountant.
An Information for plunder was filed with
the Sandiganbayan against the provincial
officials except for the treasurer who was
granted immunity when he agreed to
cooperate with the Ombudsman in the
prosecution of the case. Immediately, the
governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a
petition for certiorari against the
Ombudsman claiming there was grave
abuse of discretion in excluding the
treasurer from the Information.
Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel
the Ombudsman to include the treasurer
in the Information?
A: No. Mandamus will not lie to compel the
Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the

Information. In matter involving the exercise of

judgment and discretion, mandamus may only
be resorted to in order to compel respondent
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to
take action, but it cannot be used to direct the
manner or the particular way discretion is to be
exercised, or to compel the retraction or
reversal of an action already taken in the
exercise of judgment or discretion (Ampatuan,
Jr. v. Sec. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3,
2013)
Evidently, the Ombudsmans act of granting
the treasurer immunity from prosecution under
such terms and conditions as it may determine
(R.A. 6770, Sec. 17) is a discretionary duty that
may not be compelled by the extraordinary
writ of mandamus.
2007 Bar, Q. IX: L was charged with illegal
possession of shabu before the RTC.
Although bail was allowable under his
indictment, he could not afford to post
bail, and so he remained in detention at
the City Jail. For various reasons ranging
from the promotion of the Presiding
Judge, to the absence of the trial
prosecutor, and to the lack of the notice
to the City Jail Warden, the arraignment
of L was postponed nineteen times over a
period of two years. Twice during that
period, L's counsel filed motions to
dismiss, invoking the right of the accused
to a speedy trial. Both motions were
denied by the RTC. Can L file a petition for
mandamus? Reason briefly.
A: Yes, L can file a petition for mandamus to
enforce his constitutional right to a speedy trial
which was capriciously denied to him.
There is absolutely no justification for
postponing an arraignment of the accused 19
times and a period of 2 years. The numerous,
unreasonable postponements of the
arraignment demonstrate an abusive exercise
of discretion (Lumanlaw v. Peralta, 2006).
Arraignment of an accused would not take 30
minutes of the precious time of the court, as
against the preventive imprisonment and

deprivation of liberty of the accused just

because he does not have the means to post
bail although the crime charged is bailable.
The right to speedy trial is guaranteed by the
Constitution to every citizen accused of a
crime, more so when he is under preventive
imprisonment. L, in the given case, was merely
invoking his constitutional right when a motion
to dismiss the case was twice filed by his
counsel. The RTC is virtually enjoined by the
fundamental law to respect such right; hence a
duty. Having refused or neglected to discharge
the duty enjoined by law whereas there is no
appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
remedy of mandamus may be availed of.
II. Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts
A. Criminal Jurisdiction of the MTC,
MCTC, and MeTC
Except in cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
Sandiganbayan, the MTC shall exercise the
following criminal jurisdiction:
1.

2.

Exclusive original jurisdiction over all

violations of city or municipal
ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction (B.P.
129, Sec. 32(1); R.A. 7691)
Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other
imposable or accessory penalties,
including the civil liability arising from
such offenses irrespective of kind,
nature, value or amount (B.P. 129, Sec.
32(2); R.A. 7691)

Note: No. 2 applies when the offense is

punishable by imprisonment or fine or
both but not when the offense is
punishable by fine only

Note: The exception Except in cases falling

within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
RTC and of the Sandiganbayan indicates that
the MTC does not at all time have jurisdiction
over offenses punishable with imprisonment
not exceeding six (6) years if jurisdiction is
vested by law either in the RTC or
Sandiganbyan.

b.

c.
GR: Based on Art. 27 of RPC, MTC has
jurisdiction over offenses punishable by up to
the maximum of prision correctional which
shall not exceed six years.
7.
XPN:
(1) Offenses which even if punishable by
prision correccional are not cognizable by
the MTC because of express provision of
law (e.g. Art. 355, RPC on Libel, in this case
the RTC has jurisdiction)
(2) Some forms of bribery (Art. 210, RPC)
which are punishable by prision
correccional, are within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of
PD 1606 as amended
(3) Indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC), under
Sandiganbayan pursuant to PD 1606, as
amended.
3.

4.

5.
6.
a.

All other criminal cases where the penalty

prescribed by law for the offense charged
is imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
months, or a fine not exceeding one
thousand pesos (P1,000), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties,
accessory or otherwise, or of the civil
liability arising therefrom;
Offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence where the
imposable fine does not exceed ten
thousand pesos (P10,000)
Special jurisdiction to decide on
applications for bail in criminal cases in the
absence of all RTC judges in a province or
city (BP 129, Sec. 35)

2012 Bar, Q. 75: The MTC, acting as an

Environmental Court, has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the following,
except:
a. criminal offenses punishable under
the Chain Saw Act (R.A. 9175)
b. violation of the NIPAS Law (R.A. 7586)
c. violation of the Mining Laws
d. violation of Anti-Pollution Laws

Where the only penalty provided for by law

is a fine, the amount thereof shall
determine the jurisdiction of the court
under the original provisions of BP 129
(Sec. 32(2)) which provided that the MTC
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
over offenses punishable with a fine of not
more than P 4,000.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses
involving damage to property through
criminal negligence (B.P. 129, Sec. 32(2);
R.A. 7691)
Violations of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks
Law)
Summary Procedure in the following cases
(1991 Rule on Summary Procedure):

A: (a). The MeTC exercises exclusive original

jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years
irrespective of the amount of fine (B.P. 129,
Sec. 32). Relative thereto, R.A. 9175 (Chain
Saw Act of 2002), penalizes any person who is
found to be in possession of a chain saw and
uses the same to cut trees and timber in forest
land or elsewhere except as authorized by the
Department with imprisonment of 6 years and
1 day to 8 years or a fine of not less than
P30,000 but not more than P50,000 or both at
the discretion of the court. Clearly, the court
which has jurisdiction over violations of the
Chain Saw Act is the RTC, and not the MeTC,
acting as an Environmental Court.

Violations of (1) traffic laws, rules and

regulations, (2) violations of the rental law;
(3) violations of municipal or city
ordinances;

B. Criminal Jurisdiction of Regional Trial

Court (RTC)

1.

Exclusive original jurisdiction in all

criminal cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or
body, except those now falling under the
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. (BP 129, Sec. 20)

2011 Bar, Q. (79): The information

charges PNP Chief Luis Santos, (Salary
Grade 28), with "taking advantage of his
public position as PNP Head by
feloniously shooting JOSE ONA, inflicting
on the latter mortal wounds which caused
his death." Based solely on this
allegation, which court has jurisdiction
over the case?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Sandiganbayan only
Sandiganbayan or Regional Trial Court
Sandiganbayan or Court Martial
Regional Trial Court only

2.

Appellate jurisdiction over all cases

decided by the MTC within its
territorial jurisdiction (BP 129, Sec. 22)
Special jurisdiction to handle exclusively
criminal cases as designated by the
SC (BP 129, Sec. 23)
Jurisdiction over criminal cases under
specific laws such as:

3.
4.
a.
b.

c.
d.

Written defamation (Art. 360, RPC)

Jurisdiction of designated courts over cases
in violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165)
as provided under Sec. 90 thereof.
Violations of IP rights
Jurisdiction of designated courts over
criminal cases under R.A. 8369

A: (d). The State is mandated to safeguard the

well-being of its citizenry, particularly children
from harmful effects of dangerous drugs on
their physical and mental well-being and to
defend them against acts or omissions
detrimental to their development and
preservation. Pursuant to this policy and the
mandate of R.A. 8369, also known as the
Family Courts Act of 1997, the Family Courts
are vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases against minors charged with
drug-related offenses (A.M. No. 07-8-2-SC, Sec.
2). The objective is to ensure that the rights of
children charged with violation of any of the
offenses under R.A. 8369 are well protected,
and that their interests and those of their
family and the community are adequately
balanced (A.M. No. 07-8-2-SC, Sec. 2)
Cabral v. Jacinto Uy, (2010). The public
prosecutor has the authority to file a criminal
information for violation of P.D. 957 and the
RTC has the power to hear and adjudicate the
action, the penalty being a P20,000 fine and
imprisonment of not exceeding 10 years or
both such fine and imprisonment.
5.

a.
b.

the MTC;
the RTC;

Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases

C. Criminal Jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan
1.

2.
2012 Bar, Q. 72: Cesar, age 16, a habitual
offender, was caught in possession of .
001 grams of marijuana. He was charged
for violation of Sec. 16 of R.A. 9165, The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law.
The court which has jurisdiction is:

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:

c. Special Drugs Court;

d. Family Court.

Serana v. Sandiganbayan, (2008). The

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by
P.D. 1606 as amended and not by R.A.
3019.
R.A. 7975

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction - The Sandiganbayan

shall exercise original jurisdiction in all cases
involving:
(a) Violations of R.A. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, R.A. 1379, and
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more of

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying

the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as grade 27
and higher, of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic
Act No. 6758), specifically including:
a.

b.

c.
d.
e.
f.

g.

Provincial governors, vice-governors,

members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads;
City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other city
department heads;
Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and
higher;
Philippine army and air force colonels,
naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;
PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers
of higher rank;
City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations;

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof

classified as Grade "27" and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice
to the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials
classified as Grade "27" and higher under

the Compensation and Position

Classification Act of 1989;
(b) Other offenses or felonies committed by
the public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection (a) of this section
in relation to their office.
(c) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to
and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
In cases where none of the principal accused
are occupying positions corresponding to salary
grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the said
Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers
occupying the rank of superintendent or
higher, or their equivalent, exclusive
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be,
pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final
judgments, resolutions or orders of regular
courts where all the accused are occupying
positions lower than salary grade "27", or not
otherwise covered by the preceding
enumeration.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction, and other
ancillary writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction: Provided, That the
jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be
exclusive of the Supreme Court.
The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules
that the Supreme Court has promulgated and
may hereafter promulgate, relative to
appeals/petitions for review to the Court of
Appeals shall apply to appeals and petitions for
review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all
cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from
the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the
office of the Ombudsman, through its special

prosecutor, shall represent the people of the

Philippines except in cases filed pursuant to
Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
In case private individuals are charged as coprincipals, accomplices or accessories with the
public officers or employees, including those
employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, they shall be tried jointly with
said public officers and employees in the
proper courts which shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over them.
3.

Prior to R.A. 8249, the law which governed

the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was
R.A. 7975 amending P.D. 1606.

A significant amendment introduced by

R.A. 8249 was the removal of the word
principal before the word accused thus
transforming the phrase to read: where
one or more of the accused
It is sufficient that at least one of them be
an official occupying any of the positions
enumerated.

Offenses Subject to the Jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan
1.

The following offenses are subject to the

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:

a.

Violation of R.A. 3019, as amended (AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act)

Violations of R.A. 1379 (Act Declaring
Forfeiture in Favor of the State of Any
Property Found to have Been Unlawfully
Acquired by Any Public Officer or
Employee)
Violations of Chap. II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book
II of the RPC which includes bribery,
indirect bribery and corruption of public
officers.
Other offenses or felonies, whether simple
or complexed with other crimes, committed
by public officials mentioned in letter a of
Sec. 4 in relation to their office.

b.

c.

d.

Serena v. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan

has jurisdiction over felonies committed by
public officials in relation to their office.

e.

Civil and criminal offenses filed pursuant to

and in connection with E.O. 1, 2, 14, and
14-A issued in 1986

Officials and Employees with a Salary

Grade of 27 or Higher
1.

Q: Should one or more of the officials

charged have a salary grade of 27
or higher for the Sandiganbayan to
have jurisdiction over the case?

A: Negative. The law mentions salary grade

27 only in relation to the following officials:
(a) Officials of the executive branch, occupying
the position of regional director or higher
(b) Members of Congress or officials thereof
(c) All other national and local officials. These
officials are those who are enumerated in
letters.
The salary grade of 27 has no reference for
example to (1) provincial governors, (2) vice
governors or (3) members of the sanggunian
panlalawigan, panglunsod, (4) directors or
managers of GOCCs, (5) city mayors, (6) vice
mayors, (7) city treasurers, (8) assessors, (9)
engineers, (10) trustees of state of universities,
and other officials enumerated in Sec. 4(a)(1)
from letters a to g of PD 1606 as amended.
They are under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, regardless of the salary
grade.
2. Inding v. Sandiganbayan. The Congress
intended these officials regardless of their
salary grade, to be specifically included
within the Sandiganbayans original
jurisdiction, for had it been otherwise, then
there would have been no need for such
enumeration.
Officers Falling Below Salary Grade 27
1.

Geduspan v. People. The SC found that

the petitioner held the position of
Department Director A of Philhealth at the
time of the commission of the offense and
that position is among those enumerated in

2.

par. 1(g), Sec. 4a of R.A. 8249 over which

the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction and
which provision includes Presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of
GOCCs, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations.
People v. Sandiganbayan (2010). The
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a
member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod
whose salary grade is below 27 for
violation of the Auditing Code of the
Philippines pursuant to R.A. 8249.

murder may be committed by any person

whether a public officer or private citizen.
Sanchez v. Demetriou. There is no direct
relation between the commission of the crime
of rape with homicide and the office as
municipal mayor because public office is not an
essential element of the crime charged. The
offense can stand
3.

Salary Grade Alone Does not Determine

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
Geduspan v. People. While the first part of
Sec. 4(a) of the law covers only officials with
SG 27 and higher, its second part specifically
includes other executive officials whose
positions may not be with SG27 or higher but
who are by express provision of the law placed
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
A Student Regent of State University is a
Public Officer
Serana v. Sandiganbayan. The provision of
Sec. 4(a)(1)(g) of PD 1606 as amended,
explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or
trustees, or managers of GOCCs, state
universities or educational institutions or
foundations. The petitioner, as a student
regent falls under this category.
The Board of Regents of UP performs functions
similar to those of a board of trustees of a nonstock corporation.
Offenses Committed in Relation to the
Office
1.

2.

GR: To make an offense one committed in

relation to the office, the relation has to
be such that, in the legal sense, the
offense cannot exist without the office
(e.g. Offenses in Chap II-VI, Title VII, RPC)
Cunanan v. Arceo. Public office is not an
element of the crime of murder, since

4.

Sanchez v. Demetriou. However, even if

the position is not an essential ingredient
of the offense charged, if the information
avers the intimate connection between the
office and the offense, this would bring the
offense within the definition of an offense
committed in relation to the public office
Esteban v. Sandiganbayan. An offense
maybe said to have been committed in
relation to the office if the offense is
intimately connected with the office of
the offender and perpetrated while he was
in the performance of his official functions
even if public office is not an element of
the offense charged.

It is important however, that the information

must allege the intimate relation between the
offense charged and the discharge of official
duties because the factor that characterizes
the charge is the actual recital of the facts in
the complaint or information.
5. Esteban v. Sandiganbayan. The SC
sustained the Sandiganbayan because the
information alleged with clarity that the
accused used his official position to commit
the acts charged.
As alleged in the information, the victim was
constrained to approach the accused because
it was the latter whose recommendation was
necessary for her appointment as a casual
employee but the accused imposed the
condition that she has to become his girlfriend
first and report to his office daily for a kiss.
6. People v. Montejo. The information
clearly alleged that the murder was a
consequence of his act as a mayor; that he

organized armed patrols and civilian

commandos and provided them with arms.
7. Lacson v. Executive Secretary. While
the amended information for murder
against the several accused was alleged to
have been committed in relation to their
official duties as police officers, it
contained no specific allegations of facts
that the shooting of the victim was
intimately related to the discharge of the
official functions of the accused.
When the Actual Specific Allegations of
the Intimacy Between the Offense and the
Official Duties of the Accused Need Not
Appear in the Information
1.

If public office is a constituent element of

the crime charged as provided for by
statute, there is no need for the
information to state the specific factual
allegations of the intimacy between the
office and the crime charged, or that the
accused committee the crime in the
performance of his duties.

Ex. Malversation of Public Funds (Art. 217)

Ex. Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property
2.

3.

Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, (2005). The

requirement is not complied with if the
information merely alleges that the
accused committed the crime charged in
relation to his office because such
allegation is merely a conclusion of law
Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan. An offense is
deemed to be committed in relation to the
public office of the accused when (a) such
office is an element of the crime charged;
(b) when the offense charged is intimately
connected with the discharge of the official
functions of the accused.

Anti-Money Laundering Cases

R.A. 9160, Sec. 5. Those money laundering
cases committed by public officers and private
persons who are in conspiracy with such public
officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.

Forfeiture Cases
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan. A forfeiture case
under R.A. 1379 arises out of a cause of action
separate and different from a plunder case, this
negating the notion that the crime of plunder
absorbs the forfeiture case.
All that the court needs to determine, by
preponderance of evidence, under R.A. 1379 is
the disproportion of respondents properties to
his legitimate income, it being unnecessary to
prove how he acquired such properties.

The complaint or information shall be

accompanied by the affidavits of the compliant
and of his witnesses in such number of copies
as there are accused plus two (2) copies for the
court's files. If this requirement is not complied
with within five (5) days from date of filing, the
care may be dismissed.

If the accused is in custody for the crime

charged, he shall be immediately arraigned
and if he enters a plea of guilty, he shall
forthwith be sentenced.

However, should a party desire to present

additional affidavits or counter-affidavits as
part of his direct evidence, he shall so manifest
during the preliminary conference, stating the
purpose thereof. If allowed by the court, the
additional affidavits of the prosecution or the
counter-affidavits of the defense shall be
submitted to the court and served on the
adverse party not later than three (3) days
after the termination of the preliminary
conference. If the additional affidavits are
presented by the prosecution, the accused may
file his counter-affidavits and serve the same
on the prosecution within three (3) days from
such service.

5.

8.

4.

Summary Procedure in Criminal Cases

1.

2.
a.
b.
c.
d.

3.

Sec. 1. Scope This rule shall govern the

summary procedure in the MeTC, the
MTCC, the MTC, and the MCTC in the
following cases falling within their
jurisdiction
The following cases are subject to
summary procedure:
Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations;
Violations of the rental law;
Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
All other criminal cases where the penalty
prescribed by law for the offense charged
is imprisonment not exceeding six months,
or a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or
both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the
civil liability arising therefrom: Provided,
however, that in offenses involving damage
to property through criminal negligence,
this Rule shall govern where the imposable
fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).
Sec. 11. How commenced The filing
of criminal cases falling within the scope of
this Rule shall be either by complaint or by
information: Provided, however, that in
Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered
Cities. such cases shall be commenced
only by information, except when the
offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio.

Except in rebuttal or surrebuttal, no witness

shall be allowed to testify unless his affidavit
was previously submitted to the court in
accordance with Section 12 hereof.

6.

7.

Sec. 13. Arraignment and trial

Should the court, upon a consideration of
the complaint or information and the
affidavits submitted by both parties, find
no cause or ground to hold the accused for
trial, it shall order the dismissal of the case;
otherwise, the court shall set the case for
arraignment and trial.

Sec. 14, par. 1. Preliminary

conference Before conducting the trial,
the court shall call the parties to a
preliminary conference during which (a) a
stipulation of facts may be entered into, or
(b) the propriety of allowing the accused to
enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense
may be considered, or (c) such other
matters may be taken up to clarify the
issues and to ensure a speedy disposition
of the case.
Sec. 14, par. 2. However, no admission by
the accused shall be used against him
unless reduced to writing and signed by
the accused and his counsel. A refusal or
failure to stipulate shall not prejudice the
accused.
Sec. 15. Procedure of trial At the
trial, the affidavits submitted by the parties
shall constitute the direct testimonies of
the witnesses who executed the same.
Witnesses who testified may be subjected
to cross-examination, redirect or re-cross
examination. Should the affiant fail to
testify, his affidavit shall not be considered
as competent evidence for the party
presenting the affidavit, but the adverse
party may utilize the same for any
admissible purpose.

9.

Sec. 16. Arrest of accused The court

shall not order the arrest of the accused
except for failure to appear whenever
required. Release of the person arrested
shall either be on bail or on recognizance
by a responsible citizen acceptable to the
court.
Sec. 17. Judgment. Where a trial has
been conducted, the court shall
promulgate the judgment not later than
thirty (30) days after the termination of
trial.

Prohibited Pleadings, Motions and

Petitions in Summary Procedure; Civil and
Criminal Cases
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and
motions The following pleadings, motions
or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases
covered by this Rule:
a.

b.

Motion to dismiss the complaint or to

quash the complaint or information except
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter, or failure to comply
with the preceding section;
Motion for a bill of particulars;

c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.

Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration

of a judgment, or for opening of trial;
Petition for relief from judgment;
Motion for extension of time to file
pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
Memoranda;
Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order
issued by the court;
Motion to declare the defendant in default;
Dilatory motions for postponement;
Reply;
Third party complaints;
Interventions.

2012 Bar, Q. 34: In a criminal case for

violation of a city ordinance, the court
may issue a warrant of arrest:
a.

for failure of the accused to submit his

counter-affidavit.
b. after finding probable cause against the
accused.
c. for failure of the accused to post bail.
d. for non-appearance in court whenever
required.
A: (d). The criminal case for violation of a city
ordinance is governed by the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure. Under the said Rule, the
court shall not order the arrest of the accused
except for failure to appear whenever required
(Sec. 16, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure). Accordingly, the court may issue a
warrant of arrest for non-appearance of the
accused whenever required in a criminal case
for infraction of a city ordinance.
2004 Bar, Q. II(B): Charged with the
offense of slight physical injuries under
an information duly filed with the MeTC in
Manila which in the meantime had duly
issued an order declaring that the case
shall be governed by the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure, the accused filed
with said court a motion to quash on the
sole ground that the officer who filed the
information had no authority to do so.
The MeTC denied the motion on the

ground that it is a prohibited motion

under the said Rule.

reason that it was not commenced by

information, as required by said Rule.

The accused thereupon filed with the RTC

in Manila a petition for certiorari in sum
assailing and seeking the nullification of
the MeTC's denial of his motion to quash.
The RTC in due time issued an order
denying due course to the certiorari
petition on the ground that it is not
allowed by the said Rule. The accused
forthwith filed with said RTC a motion for
reconsideration of its said order. The RTC
in time denied said motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the
same is also a prohibited motion under
the said Rule.

Sometime later, based on the same facts

giving rise to the slight physical injuries
case, the City Prosecutor filed with the
same MeTC-QC an information for
attempted homicide against the same
RGR. In due time, before arraignment,
RGR moved to quash the information on
the ground of double jeopardy and after
due hearing, the Judge granted his
motion.

Were the RTC's orders denying due course

to the petition as well as denying the
motion for reconsideration correct?
Reason
A: The RTC's orders denying due course to the
petition for certiorari as well as denying the
motion for reconsideration are both not correct.
The petition for certiorari is a prohibited
pleading under Section 19(g) of the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure and the motion for
reconsideration, while it is not prohibited
motion (Lucas v. Fabros, AM No. MTJ-99-1226,
January 31, 2000, citing Joven v. Court of
Appeals, 212 SCRA 700, 707-708 (1992),
should be denied because the petition for
certiorari is a prohibited pleading.
2004 Bar, Q. VII(B): SPO1 CNC filed with
the MTC in Quezon City (MeTC-QC) a
sworn written statement duly subscribed
by him, charging RGR (an actual resident
of Cebu City) with the offense of slight
physical injuries allegedly inflicted on SPS
(an actual resident of Quezon City). The
Judge of the branch to which the case was
raffled thereupon issued an order
declaring that the case shall be governed
by the Rule on Summary Procedure in
criminal cases. Soon thereafter, the Judge
ordered the dismissal of the case for the

Was the dismissal of the complaint for

slight physical injuries proper? Was the
grant of the motion to quash the
attempted homicide information correct?
Reason
A: Yes, the dismissal of the complaint for slight
physical injuries is proper because in
Metropolitan Manila and in chartered cities, the
case has to be commenced only by
information. (Sec. 11, Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure).
No, the grant of the motion to quash the
attempted homicide information on the ground
of double jeopardy was not correct, because
there was no valid prosecution for slight
physical injuries.
1989 Bar, Q. XVI(1): Edison was charged
with the crime of less serious physical
injuries in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila. Under the Revised Penal Code,
the penalty prescribed for this offense is
arresto mayor, Aside from the recital of
the facts constituting the offense, the
information alleged that the offended
party suffered actual damages in the
amount of P25,000. Instead of submitting
his counter-affidavits as required by the
court, Edison filed a motion to quash
contending that the court had no
jurisdiction over the case since the
amount claimed as damages exceeds the
jurisdic-tional limit of trial courts in civil

cases. If you were the judge trying the

case, what would you do with the-motion
filed? How would you dispose of the
question of jurisdiction raised in the said
motion? Explain.

Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

applicable?

A: I would deny the motion to quash inasmuch

as such a motion is not allowed in Summary
Procedure. The criminal case where the penalty
prescribed by law for the offense charged does
not exceed six months of imprisonment is
governed by Summary procedure.

1.

A: It is applicable in the following criminal

cases:

2.
3.
4.

On the question of jurisdiction, Summary

Procedure applies irrespective of the civil
liability arising from the offense. Hence the fact
that the civil liability exceeds P2Q,000 does not
deprive the Metropolitan Trial Court of
jurisdiction. (Sec. B-4)
1989 Bar, Q. XVI(2): An information for
slight physical injuries was filed against
Diego in the Municipal Trial Court of
Cainta, after which the judge directed him
to appear and submit counter- affidavits
and those of his witnesses on September
12, 1989. Diego failed to appear on the
said date. Thereafter, the judge rendered
judgment convicting Diego of the offense
charged based on the affidavits submitted
by the complainant. Diego contends that
this judgment is a nullity. Decide.
A: Diegos contention is correct. Under
Summary Procedure rules, the failure of Diego
to appear and submit counter-affidavits on the
date specified may be a ground for the judge to
issue a warrant for his arrest upon a finding of
probable cause. However, the judge may not
render a judg-ment of conviction of the offense
charged based on the affidavits submitted by
the complainant. He should set the case for
arraignment and trial if Diego pleads not guilty.
Only after trial may the judge render a
judgment of conviction. (Secs. 10 and 11)
1988 Bar, Q. XIV(b): In what criminal
cases is the Summary Procedure before
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

5.

Violations of traffic laws, rules and

regulations;
Violations of the rental law;
Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
All other criminal cases where the penalty
prescribed by law for the offense charged
does not exceed six months of
imprisonment, or a fine of one thousand
pesos (PI,000.00), or both, irrespective of
other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising
therefrom: Provided, however, that in
offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, this Rule shall
govern where the imposable fine does not
exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,600 00).
(Sec. 1-B)
Through criminal negligence, this Rule shall
govern where the imposable fine does not
exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,600 00).
(Sec. 1-B)
Ana Lou Navaja v. Hon. De Castro
G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015

Doctrine: The venue if criminal actions for

falsification of public document is the place
where the document was falsified to the
prejudice of or with the intent to prejudice a
third person, regardless whether or not the
falsified document is put to the improper or
illegal use for which it was intended.
Facts:
1.

2.

A complaint-affidavit was filed by private

respondent DKT Phil. Inc. against Navaja
charging her of falsification of private
document.
Navaja filed a Motion to Quash on the
ground that none of the essential
elements of the crime of falsification
of private document occurred in

3.
4.
5.

Jagna, Bohol, hence, the MCTC had no

jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
case due to improper venue. This was
denied by the MCTC. MR was denied
On petition for certiorari, the RTC denied
the petition of lack of merit
On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the
decision of the RTC. MR was denied
Hence, this petition

Issue: WON the venue for falsification of

private document was improperly laid
Held:
1.

Venue in criminal cases is an essential

element of jurisdiction. This principle was
explained by the Court in Foz, Jr. v. People,
thus:

It is a fundamental rule that for

jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in
criminal cases the offense should have
been committed or any one of its
essential ingredients took place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is
the territory where the court has jurisdiction to
take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Thus, it
cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged
with an offense allegedly committed outside of
that limited territory. Furthermore, the
jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint
or information. And once it is so shown, the
court may validly take cognizance of the case.
However, if the evidence adduced during the
trial show that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
action for want of jurisdiction.
2.

In determining the venue where the

criminal action is to be instituted and the
court which has jurisdiction over it, Section
15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure provides:

Subject to existing laws, the criminal action

shall be instituted and tried in the court or
municipality or territory where the offense was

committed or where any of its essential

ingredients occurred.
3.

Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised

Rules of Criminal Procedure pertinently
states:

Place of commission of the offense. The

complaint or information is sufficient if it can
be understood from its allegations that the
offense was committed or some of its essential
ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular
place where it was committed constitutes an
essential element of the offense charged or is
necessary for its identification.
4. In Union Bank of the Philippines v. People,
the Court said that both provisions
categorically place the venue and
jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in
the court where the offense was
committed, but also where any of its
essential ingredients took place. In
other words, the venues of action and
of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently
alleged where the Information states
that the offense was committed or
some of its essential ingredients
occurred at a place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
5. In cases of falsification of private
documents, the venue is the place
where the document is actually
falsified, to the prejudice of or with
the intent to prejudice a third person,
regardless whether or not the falsified
document is put to the improper or
illegal use for which it was intended.
6. Contrary to Navaja's argument that the
MCTC of Jagna, Bohol, has no jurisdiction
over the case because not one of the
essential elements of falsification of private
document was committed within its
jurisdiction, the allegations in the
Information and the complaintaffidavit make out a prima facie case
that such crime was committed in
Jagna, Bohol. In particular, the
Information clearly alleged that she
committed such crime thereat

7.

Likewise, the Complaint-Affidavit dated

February 18, 2004 alleged that the
she committed the said crime in
Jagna, Bohol
8. Guided by the settled rule that the
jurisdiction of the court is determined by
the allegations of the complaint or
information and not by the result of proof,
the Court holds that Navaja's case for
falsification of private document falls
within the territorial jurisdiction of the
MCTC of Jagna, Bohol.
9. Meanwhile, Navaja's defense that it was
impossible for her to have committed the
crime in Jagna, Bohol, cannot be sustained
at this point where the prosecution has yet
to present evidence to prove the material
allegations of the charge against her, which
include the place where the subject receipt
was falsified.
10. However, given that the defense of lack of
jurisdiction due to improper venue may be
raised at any stage of the proceeding, the
Court stresses that if the evidence adduced
during the trial would show that the crime
was indeed committed outside its territorial
jurisdiction, the MCTC should dismiss the
case based on such ground.
11. Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.
Dazon v. Yap and People
G.R. No. 157095, January 15, 2010
Facts:
1.
2.

3.
4.

Respondent Yap was the President of

Primetown Property Group, Inc. (PPGI).
In November 1996, petitioner Dazon
entered into contract with PPGI for the
purchase of a Condominium unit. Dazon
made downpayment and installments.
Unfortunately for her, the condominium
was not completed by PPGI
This prompted Dazon to demand refund of
what she has paid pursuant to P.D. 957,
Sec. 23 but PPGI failed to pay
Petitioner filed a criminal complaint with
the OCP of Lapu-Lapu City against
respondent as President of PPGI for
violation of P.D. 957. Subsequently an
Information was filed against him.

5.

6.

Respondent filed a Petition for Review with

the DOJ. The DOJ ordered the withdrawal of
the Information. Hence, the Prosecutor filed
a Motion to Withdraw, which was
eventually granted. MR was denied
Hence, this petition.

Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over

a criminal action for violation of P.D. 957
Held:
1. The primordial function of the HLURB is the
regulation of the real estate trade and
business. Though the agency's
jurisdiction has been expanded by
law, it has not grown to the extent of
encompassing the conviction and
punishment of criminals.
2. The petition is impressed with merit.
3. A perusal of the allegations in the
complaint-affidavit would show
complainant's grievance against
respondent was the failure of the latter's
firm to refund the payments she made for
one of the units in the aborted Mactan
condominium project in the total amount of
P1,114,274.30.
4. As early as in the case of Solid Homes, Inc.
vs. Payawal, the SC had ruled that the
HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases
involving real estate business and practices
under P.D. 957.
5. Of significant relevance is the following
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
Raet vs. CA, as follows:
The contention has merit. The decision in the
ejectment suit is conclusive only on the
question of possession of the subject premises.
It does not settle the principal question
involved in the present case, namely, whether
there was perfected contract of sale
between petitioners and private
respondent PVDHC involving the units in
question. Under 8(100) of E.O. No. 648 dated
February 7, 1981, as amended by E.O. No. 90
dated December 17, 1986 this question is for
the HLURB to decide. The said provision of law
gives that agency the power to:

(a) Hear and decide cases of unsound real

estate business practices;
(b) Claims involving refund filed against
project owners, developers, dealers,
brokers, or salesmen; and
(c) Cases of specific performance.
This jurisdiction of the HLURB is
exclusive. It has been held to extend to
the determination of the question
whether there is a perfected contract of
sale between condominium buyers and
[the] developer
In fine, the Rule of Law dictates that we should
yield to this judicial declaration upholding the
jurisdiction of the HLURB over cases of this
nature.
Hence, there is a need for the Court to make a
definite ruling on a question of law - the matter
of jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of PD
957.
Jurisdiction over criminal actions arising
from violations of PD 957 is vested in the
regular courts.
6. Jurisdiction is" conferred by law and
determined by the material averments
in the complaint as well as the
character of the relief sought.
7. The scope and limitation of the jurisdiction
of the HLURB are well-defined. Its
precursor, the National Housing Authority
(NHA), was vested under P.D. 957 with
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real
estate trade and business, specifically the
registration of subdivision or condominium
projects and dealers, brokers and salesmen
of subdivision lots or condominium units,
issuance and suspension of license to sell;
and revocation of registration certificate
and license to sell. Its jurisdiction was later
expanded under PD 1344 (1978) to include
adjudication of certain cases, to wit:
Sec. 1. In the exercise of its functions to
regulate the real estate trade and business and
in addition to its powers provided for in
Presidential Decree No. 957, the National

Housing Authority shall have the exclusive

jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the
following nature:
(a) Unsound real estate business practices;
(b) Claims involving refund and any other
claims filed by subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or
salesman; and
(c) Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed
by buyers of subdivision lot or
condominium unit against the owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman
8.

It is a settled rule of statutory

construction that the express mention
of one thing in the law means the
exclusion of others not expressly
mentioned. This rule is expressed in the
familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio
alterius.
9. Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly
limited to certain matters, it may not, by
interpretation or construction, be extended
to others. The rule proceeds from the
premise that the legislature would not have
made specified enumerations in a statute
had the intention been not to restrict its
meaning and to confine its terms to statute
had the intention been not to restrict its
meaning and to confine its terms to those
expressly mentioned.
10. Noticeably, cases that are criminal in
nature are not mentioned in the
enumeration quoted above. The
primordial function of the HLURB,
after all, is the regulation of the real
estate trade and business and not the
conviction and punishment of
criminals.
11. "It may be conceded that the legislature
may confer on administrative boards or
bodies quasi-judicial powers involving the
exercise of judgment and discretion, as
incident to the performance of
administrative functions. But in so doing,
the legislature must state its intention
in express terms that would leave no
doubt, as even such quasi-judicial

prerogatives must be limited, if they

are to be valid, only to those
incidental to or in connection with the
performance of administrative duties,
which do not amount to conferment of
jurisdiction over a matter exclusively
vested in the courts".
12. Administrative agencies being tribunals of
limited jurisdiction can only wield such
powers as are specifically granted to them
by their enabling statutes. P.D. 957 makes
the following specific grant of powers to
the NHA (now HLURB) for the imposition of
administrative fines, and it also mentions
penalties for criminal cases, to wit:
Sec. 38. Administrative Fine The Authority
may prescribe and impose fines not
exceeding ten thousand pesos (P10,000)
for violations of the provisions of this
Decree or any rule or regulation
thereunder. Fines shall be payable to the
Authority and enforceable through writs of
execution in accordance with the provisions of
the Rules of Court.
Sec. 39. Penalties Any person who shall
violate any of the provisions of this Decree
and/or any rule or regulation that may be
issued pursuant to this Decree shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more
than twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos
and/or imprisonment of not more than ten
years: Provided, That in the case of
corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or
associations, the President, Manager or
Administrator or the person who has charge of
the administration of the business shall be
criminally responsible for any violation of
this/Decree and/or the rules and regulations
promulgated pursuant thereto,
13. Having limited, under Section 38 of P.D.
957, the grant of power to the former NHA,
now HLURB, over the imposition of fines to
those which do not exceed ten thousand
pesos, it is clear that the power in relation
to criminal liability mentioned in the
immediately succeeding provision, to
impose, upon conviction, fines above ten
thousand pesos and/or imprisonment, was

not conferred on it. Section 39, unlike

Section 38, conspicuously does not state
that it is the MIA that may impose the
punishment specified therein.
14. Not having been specifically conferred
with power to hear and decide cases
which are criminal in nature, as well
as to impose penalties therefor, we
find that the HLURB has no jurisdiction
over criminal actions arising from
violations of PD 957.
15. On the other hand, B.P. 129 states:
Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be
exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.

16. Based on the above-quoted provision,

it is the RTC that has jurisdiction over
criminal cases arising from violations
of PD 957.
17. In the present case, the affidavitcomplaint alleges the violation of
Section 23 of PD 957 and asks for the
institution of a criminal action against
respondent Yap, as President of
Primetown.
18. The OCP found probable cause for the filing
of an Information for the subject offense.
The DOJ made no reversal of such finding
of probable cause.
19. Instead, it directed the withdrawal of
the information on the erroneous
premise that it is the HLURB which has
jurisdiction over the case.
20. However, as above-discussed, and
contrary to the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice, it is not the
HLURB but the RTC that has

jurisdiction to hear the said criminal

action.
21. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
Miscellaneous
1990 Bar, Q. XVII:
(a) Does a court martial have jurisdiction
to try and convict a soldier, a
policeman and a civilian for alleged
conspiracy in the crime of murder?
Explain your answer.
(b) May a member of the military, who
committed certain violations of the
Articles of War, be tried by a court
martial even after his discharge from
the military service? Discuss with
reasons