.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A. PRINCIPLES and ELEMENTS
Allegations of Complaint/Information as Basis of Jurisdiction
Buaya vs. Polo PARTIES INVOLVED
169 SCRA 471 (1989) ● Petitioner Solemnidad Buaya - insurance agent
of private respondent Country Bankers
● Respondent Presiding Judge Wenceslao Polo
and Country Bankers Insurance Corporation
HOW THE DISPUTE STARTED
● Petitioner Buaya, as the insurance agent of private
resp, was required to make a periodic report and
accounting of her transactions and remit premiums
to the principal office of Country Bankers in Manila
● An audit was conducted on petitioner’s account
which showed a shortage of P358,850.72
PROCEDURE IN THE RTC - MANILA Branch 19
● Petitioner was charged with estafa
● Petitioner filed a MOTION TO DISMISS, which was
denied, and a MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, which was also denied
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER
● RTC Manila has no jurisdiction because she is
based in Cebu City and the funds she allegedly
misappropriated were collected in Cebu City
● The subject matter of the case is purely civil in
nature
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS
● The denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash,
being interlocutory, cannot be questioned by
certiorari and it cannot be the subject of appeal
until final judgment or order is rendered.
● Ordinary procedure is to enter a plea, go to trial,
and if decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on
appeal
Real Party in Interest in Criminal Cases
ISSUE: Whether or not RTC - Manila has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of petitioner’s criminal case for estafa (YES)
RTC -MANILA HAS JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF
PETITIONER’S CRIMINAL CASE FOR ESTAFA. JURISDICTION OF
COURTS IN CRIMINAL CASES IS DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION, AND NOT BY THE FINDINGS
THE COURT MAY MAKE AFTER TRIAL.
● Section 14(a) Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Court provides: In all
criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was
committed or any of the essential elements thereof took place
● In this case, the information charges petitioner with estafa
committed “during the period 1980 to June 15, 1982 inclusive in the
City of Manila, Philippines”
MOREOVER, THE CRIME OF ESTAFA IS A CONTINUING OR
TRANSITORY OFFENSE WHICH MAY BE PROSECUTED AT THE PLACE
WHERE ANY OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME TOOK
PLACE
● Damage or prejudice is an essential element of estafa.
● Private respondent has its principal place of business and office at
Manila -- 9th flr, GR Antonio Bldg, T.M Kalaw, Ermita, Manila City
● Petitioner’s failure to remit the insurance premiums she collected
allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in
Manila
FALLO: The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The case is remanded
to the RTC Manila Branch 19 for further proceedings.
.
Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No.
178607, Dec. 5, 2012
PARTIES INVOLVED:
● Dante LA. Jimenez (Petitioner) – President of
Unilad Shipping & Management Corporation, a
local manning agency.
● Socrates Antzoula, Carmen Alamil, Marceli
Gaza, and Markos Avgoustis (Respondents) –
Incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services Inc.
(TMSI), business rival of Unilad.
CRIMINAL CASE: Syndicated and Large Scale Illegal
Rrecruitment
DANTE FILED A COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT WITH THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF
MANDALUYONG CITY AGAINST RESPONDENTS FOR
SYNDICATED AND LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT.
● Dante alleged that the respondents falsely
represented their stockholdings in TMSI’s articles
of incorporation to secure a license to operate as a
recruitment agency.
● The RTC found the existence of probable cause
and thus issued warrants of arrest against the
respondents.
● Carmen filed a motion for judicial determination of
probable cause.
o Dane opposed claiming that Carmen
had no standing to seek any relief and
that the Court had already found probable
cause.
o Denied.
o Motion for Reconsideration.
● Before acting on the motion for reconsideration, the
Judge then voluntarily inhibited herself.
RULING OF THE RTC (New Judge): Granted the Motion
for Reconsideration.
● Treated the motion as a motion to dismiss for lack
of probable cause.
● No evidence that the respondents gave any false
information to secure its license.
● Carmen had standing since she voluntarily
submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court
when she filed pleadings seeking affirmative relief.
● Denied motion for reconsideration since it merely
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ISSUE:
(1) WON Dante has standing. - NO
(2) WON the court obtained jurisdiction on Carmen when she
asked for affirmative relief, giving her standing to seek relief. -
YES
RULING:
(1) NO. Petitioner has no legal personality to assail the dismissal
of the criminal case. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ISSUE
● Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest - who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit.
● When the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest, the
suit is dismissible.
● Procedural law basically mandates that “all criminal actions
commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of
criminal cases before the CA and before this Court, the OSG is
the appellate counsel of the People.
● The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and
only the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings
pending in the CA or in this Court.
● Dante has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal
case since the main issue raised by him involved the criminal
aspect of the case, i.e., the existence of probable cause. Dante did
not appeal to protect his alleged pecuniary interest as an
offended party of the crime, but to cause the reinstatement of
the criminal action against the respondents.
(2) YES. Carmen voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s
jurisdiction. JURISDICTION ISSUE
● As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Filing pleadings seeking
affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the
consequent jurisdiction of one's person to the jurisdiction of the
court.
● Thus, by filing several motions before the RTC seeking the
dismissal of the criminal case, respondent Alamil voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the appeal. The twin resolutions of
the Court of Appeals dated November 23, 2006 and June 28, 2007 in CAG.R.
SP No. 96584 are AFFIRMED.
.
Elements and Requisites of Criminal Jurisdiction
Antiporda vs Gatchitorena
G.R. No. 133289 December 23,
1999
This is a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition with Preliminary
Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order to restrain the
respondent Justices of the First
Division of the Sandiganbayan
from further proceeding with
Crim. Case No. 24339 and from
enforcing the warrants for the
arrest of the accused named
therein (herein petitioners) or to
maintain the status quo until
further orders from this Court.
reiterated Dante’s first contentions.
● Notice of appeal denied since it was filed without
the conformity of the Solicitor General.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 TO CA:
Dismissed the petition.
● Dante is not the real party in interest, not being a
victim to the crime charged against respondents
and that only the Solicitor General has the
personality to represent The People.
● Motion for reconsideration was denied.
HENCE, THIS APPEAL
ARGUMENTS OF DANTE:
● He has legal standing to assail the dismissal of the
criminal case since he is a real party in interest
who had been directly damaged.
● Carmen has no legal standing to seek any relief
from the RTC since she is a fugitive from justice.
PARTIES INVOLVED:
Petitioners (Antiporda, Rubiaco, Gascon and Talla) –
Charged with the crime of kidnapping
Respondent (Sandoval, Gachitorena, Castañeda) –
Sued in their capacity as the Presiding Justice and
Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan
HOW THE CASE STARTED:
The petitioners were charged with the crime of
kidnapping of one Elmer Ramos. The information dated
September 18, 1997 was filed with the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan which comprised of the respondents herein.
· The information said that the petitioners herein did the
crime armed with guns, conspiring together and helping
each other by means of force to commit the said crime.
· On November 10, 1997, the Court issued an order
giving the prosecution represented by Prosecutor Evelyn T.
Lucero Agcaoili thirty (30) days within which to submit the
amendment to the Information.
· According to Prosecutor Agcaoili that there
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
GOOD TO KNOW CONCEPTS:
Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code:
“The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the
Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in
any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of
lawyers. . . . It shall have the following specific powers and functions:
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its
officers in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government
or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
ISSUE:
W/N the Sandiganbayan, can have jurisdiction over the offense by just
amending the information to supply for the first time the jurisdictional facts
which is not present in the first information. YES
YES IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAD
JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
· THERE ARE THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTION TO BE
ACQUIRED
(1) JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
(2) JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
(3) JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED.
· Under Section 4 paragraph a of PD No. 1606 as amended by PD No
1861 which provides the jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan: (a) Exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving Other offenses or felonies committed
by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those
employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or
complexed with other crimes. (Please check the Good things to know for the
full details)
· (2) It is undisputed that the Sandiganbayan had territorial jurisdiction
over the case.
.
inadequacies in the allegation in the information thus the
amendment. The Court for its part expressed anxiety as
to the Courts jurisdiction over the case considering that
it was not clear whether or not the subject matter of the
accusation was office related.
· The amended information added the sentences, “the
accused Licerio Antiporda, Jr., being the Municipal Mayor of
Buguey, Cagayan in the exercise of his official duties as
such and taking advantage of his position, ordered,
confederated and conspired with Juan Gallardo, Barangay
Captain of San Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan (now deceased)
and accused Eliterio Rubiaco, barangay councilman of San
Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan, Vicente Gascon and Caesar
Talla”
· Accused then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion
dated November 16, 1997 praying that a reinvestigation of
the case be conducted and the issuance of warrants of
arrest be deferred. However this Urgent Omnibus Motion
was denied. Thereafter the accused filed a Motion for
New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance
and/or Recall Warrant of Arrest issued. However the
same was denied.
· Subsequently, the accused filed on March 24, 1998 a
Motion to Quash the Amended Information for lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged. However this was
ignored because it appearing that the accused have
continually refused or otherwise failed to submit themselves
to the jurisdiction of this Court. In addition the Amended
Information already made an appropriate description that the
offense is clearly related to the office of the accused.
· A motion for reconsideration for the filing of the
Motion to Quash however it was denied.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:
· The petitioners argue that the Sandiganbayan had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because the
original information did not allege that one of the petitioners,
Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., took advantage of his position as
mayor of Buguey, Cagayan to order the kidnapping of Elmer
Ramos.
· They likewise assert that lacking jurisdiction a court
can not order the amendment of the information. In the
same breath, they contend however that the Sandiganbayan
had jurisdiction over the persons of the accused.
· They cite the case of Layosa vs. Rodriguez in support
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
· They cite the case of Layosa vs. Rodriguez in support of their
contention. For therein, it was ruled that the voluntary appearance of the
accused at the pre-suspension hearing amounted to his submission to the
courts jurisdiction even if no warrant of arrest has yet been issued.
· To counter this contention of the petitioners the prosecution adverted
to case of de los Santos-Reyes vs. Montesa, Jr. which was decided some 28
years after the Layosa case. In this more recent case, it was held that: “the
accused have no right to invoke the processes of the court since they have
not been placed in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of their liberty
by reason or as a consequence of the filling of the information. For the same
reason, the court had no authority to act on the petition.”
· We now come to the question of whether or not the Sandiganbayan
had jurisdiction over the offense charged.
· We answer in the negative. The original Information filed with the
Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense committed by the accused is
office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the prosecution
belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein
· However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to
motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation dated June 10, 1997 filed
with the same court, it was they who challenged the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for
Reconsideration that the said crime is work connected
· It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a
court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent, and after obtaining or
failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. As
provided in the Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court provides thus:
Section 14. Amendment. The information or complaint may be amended, in
substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the accused
pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave
and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without
prejudice to the rights of the accused.
· We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
case because of estoppel and it was thus vested with the authority to order
the amendment of the Information.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is
hereby DISMISSED
GOOD THINGS TO KNOW
Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering
justice, that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have
authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties.[14]
.
SUBJECT MATTER OR OFFENSE: RPC as amended and Special Penal Laws
Law at time of institution of criminal action not at commission
People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA
442 (1990)
Subject matter jurisdiction is
obtained by the court at the time
of the institution of the action and
NOT at the time of commission of
the crime or offense charged
of their contention. For therein, it was ruled that the
voluntary appearance of the accused at the pre-suspension
hearing amounted to his submission to the courts jurisdiction
even if no warrant of arrest has yet been issued.
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Libertad Lagon – accused; charged with estafa under par
2(d), Art. 315 of the RPC
HOW THE CASE STARTED
· Accused, Libertad Lagon, was charged with the crime
of Estafa under par. 2(d), Art. 315 of the RPC
o allegedly issued a check in the amount of
P4,232.8 as payment for goods or merchandise
purchased
o knew she had no sufficient funds to cover the
check
o check bounced
· Criminal Information was filed on July 7 1976
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Section 4, paragraph (a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861
provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
xxx
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in
relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or
controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes,
where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or
imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00. Provided, however,
That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty
prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for
six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit
Trial Court.
THERE ARE THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTION TO BE
ACQUIRED
(1) JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
(2) JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
(3) JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED.
ISSUE/S: 1. WON City Court obtained jurisdiction over the criminal case
when the information was filed – NO
2. WON the application of the new law would violate the rule against
retroactivity of laws - YES
THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF A COURT IN CRIMINAL LAW
MATTERS IS PROPERLY MEASURED BY THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE
TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION, RATHER
THAN BY THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF
THE OFFENSE CHARGED.
· Petitioner has filed to show that the City Court committed reversible
error in dismissing the information without prejudice to its re-filing in the
proper court
· Sec. 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948: “municipal judges in the
capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and judges of city courts shall have
.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE IN THE CITY COURT like jurisdiction as the CFI to try parties charged with an offense within their
TRIAL ENSUED respective jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed
· Prosecution commenced the presentation of evidence prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six(6) years or a fine
CITY COURT: RELEASED AN ORDER STATED DEC. 2 not exceeding P6,000, or both …”
1976
· dismissed the information
o penalty prescribed for the offense charged was AT THE TIME OF THE AT THE TIME OF THE
beyond the jurisdiction of the city court COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE INSTITUTION OF THE ACTION
· Judge held that jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal
action is determined by the law in force at the time of the
·
institution of the action, and NOT by the law in force at the April 5 1975 · July 7 1976
time of the commission of the offense · Maximum penalty: arresto mayor in · Maximum penalty imposable:
· its maximum period to prision increased PM in its medium period
correccional in its minimum period · Amended by PD No. 818
AT THE TIME OF AT THE TIME OF· within the jurisdiction of the City · Effectivity: October 22, 1975
COMMISSION OF OFFENSE INSTITUTION OF ACTION Court

· Alleged · At the time the · Subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the
commission: April 1975 criminal information wasauthority of the court to impose the penalty imposable under the applicable
· jurisdiction was filed, par. 2(d), Art. 315 statute given the allegations in the criminal information
vested over the City Court was already amended
· Penalty imposable SHOULD THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION BE REFILED IN THE PROPER
increased COURT, THAT IS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, THAT COURT MAY
· beyond the City NOT IMPOSE THE MORE ONEROUS PENALTY UPON LAGON
Court’s jurisdiction to (ASSUMING THAT THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED BEFORE OCT. 22
impose 1975).
· RTC remains vested with jurisdiction to try and decide the refiled case
even though the penalty imposable should be lower than that provided for by
CITY COURT: DISMISSED THE INFORMATION law
· Without prejudice to its being re-filed with the proper · People v. Purisima (1976): “… jurisdiction of the court is not
court which has jurisdiction determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by
the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial, but by the
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime, or
PEOPLE (REPRESENTED BY CITY FISCAL AND ASST. violation charged in the complaint”
CITY FISCAL AS COUNSEL): PETITION FOR REVIEW o “If the facts recited are sufficient to show that the court in which the
· Arguments: complaint is presented has jurisdiction, it assumes jurisdiction.”
o City Court of Roxas City had jurisdiction over the · The same rule was adopted in People v. Buissan:
criminal case o In addition, the Court also said that “It is unquestionable that the
o erred in issuing the Order dismissing the case CFI, after taking cognizance of a criminal case coming under its
· Because the petition was signed by both the City jurisdiction, may, after trial, impose a penalty that is proper for a crime
Fiscal and Asst. City Fiscal, it was referred to the Office of within the exclusive competence of a municipal or city court as the
the SolGen evidence would wa rrant.”
· Acting SolGen Vicente Mendoza:
o having previously been consulted by the Asst. City FALLO: Wherefore, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review for
Fiscal of Roxas, agreed with the position taken by the lack of merit
City Court
o City Court had jurisdiction over the criminal case
involved
o Petition should be given due course
.
SUBJECT MATTER OR OFFENSE: Exception, offenses under jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
People v. Sandiganbayan &
Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, Sept.
15, 2010
PARTIES INVOLVED
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines rep by the OSG
RESPONDENT: Rolando Plaza - member of Sangguniang
Panlungsod with Salary Grade (SG) 25
HOW THE CASE STARTED:
● Respondent Plaza, a member of Sangguniang
Panlunsod of Toledo City, Cebu obtained a cash
advance from the City Government of Toledo in the
total amount of P33,000 and despite demand to
liquidate such cash advances, failed to do so, and
thus was charged before the Sandiganbayan with
violation of Sec 89 of PD No. 1445 or the Auditing
Code of the Philippines.
● Respondent Sandiganbayan, upon Motion of Resp
Plaza, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction
without prejudice to its filing in proper court. Hence
the petition
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN:
● After the Information was filed against Respondent
Plaza, the latter filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD)
● Sandiganbayan issue an Order directing the
Petitioner to submit its Comment
● Petitioner filed its Opposition to MTD
● The Court issued a Resolution dismissing the case
for lack of jurisdiction
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SC:
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER PEOPLE REP BY OSG:
● Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases
involving public officials enumerated under Sec 4
(a)(1) of PD 1606 as amended by RA Nos. 7975
and 8249 whether or not occupying a position
classified under Salary Grade 27 & above, who
are charged not only for violation of RA 3019 and
1379 or any felonies included in Chapter II Sec II
Title VII Book II of RPC but also for crimes
committed in relation to his office.
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT PLAZA
● Respondent argued that the phrasing in Sec 4 PD
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ISSUE:
● WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of
Sangguniang Panlungsod whose salary grade is below 27 and
charged with violation of the Auditing Code of the Phil.
RULING: YES
● Sec 4. Jurisdiction - Sandiganbayan shall exercise original
jurisdiction in all cases involving
○ A. Violations of RA 3019 (anti graft and corrupt practices
act), RA 1379. RPC where one or more principal accused
are officials occupying the following positions:
■ Officials of the executive branch occupying
positions… classified as SG 27 and higher,
specifically including:
● (b) … Sangguniang Panlunsod
○ B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple of complexed
with other crimes committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection (A) of this section in
relation to their office
● As explained in the case of People v Sandiganbayan and Amante,
to which the Court said that such has uncanny similarities with the
present case (both were members of Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Toledo City), it provides that:
○ In order for the SB to acquire jurisdiction over the said
offenses, such must be committed by the officials of the
exec branch classified as SG 27 and higher
○ BUT, those that are classified as SG 26 and below may still
fall within the jurisdiction of the SB provided that they hold
the position enumerated in the same law. IN
CONNECTION, Sec 4 (B) provides that other offenses or
felonies committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection (A) in relation to their office shall
also fall under jurisdiction of SB
● Here, the SC actually just quoted the case cited above and applied
the ruling there stating that a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod during the alleged commission of an offense in relation
to his office, necessarily falls within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan
● The case of Inding v Sandiganbayan which the Respondent SB
used in justifying that they do not have jurisdiction, the Court said
that the case didn’t categorically nor implicitly constrict or confine
the application of the enumeration provided under Sec 4 (A) of PD
.
VENUE or TERRITORY WHERE COMMITTED: PURPOSE
Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases; based on allegations; burden of proof
Treñas v. People, G. R. No.
195002, January 25, 2012
*Note: Petitioner has been variably called Treas and Trenas
1606 as amended apparently defines the
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan first while the
exceptions are provided in the rest of the
paragraph.
● Hence the Sandiganbayan was right in ruling that it
has jurisdiction only over the following cases:
○ Where the accused is a public official with
salary grade 27 and above
○ In cases where the accused is a public
official below salary grade 27 but his
position is one of those mentioned in the
enumeration in Sec 4 (a)(1)(a) to (g) of PD
1606 as amended and his offense
involves a violation of RA 3019 and
1379 and under Sec II Title VII RPC
○ If the indictment involves offenses other
than 3 aforementioned statutes, the
general rule that a public official must
occupy a position of SG27 and higher
before Sandiganbayan could exercise
jurisdiction must apply
● Simply put, to respondent’s mind:
○ GR: SG 27 and above
○ XPN: SG 26 and below BUT the position
of the government official involved was
mentioned in PD 1606 AND the offense
must be RA 3019, 1379 and Sec II Title
VII RPC.
● Bear in mind that the offense charged to the
respondent is a violation against the Auditing Code
of the Phil. Thus for the respondent, the general
should be the one to be applied
PARTIES INVOLVED
● Atty. Hector Treas - received in trust from
Elizabeth Luciaja the amount of PHP150,000.00
with the express obligation on his part to use the
said amount for expenses and fees in connection
with the purchase of parcel of land which he used
for his personal use and benefit.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1606 as amended, exclusively to cases where the offense charged
is violation of RA 3019, 1379 and RPC.
○ As long as the offense charged in the information is
intimately connected with the office and is alleged to have
been perpetrated while the accused was in the
performance, though irregular, of his official function, there
being no personal motive to commit the crime, and the
accused would not have committed it, had he not held the
office, it is indicted for “an offense committed in relation” to
his office
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Petition dated September 2, 2005 is hereby
GRANTED and the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) dated
July 20, 2005 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Let the case be
REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.
GOOD TO KNOW CONCEPTS:
● “Offenses deemed to have been committed in relation to office” - If
the offense cannot exist without the office such that that the office is
a constituent element of the crime (Montilla v Hilario)
ISSUE:
1. WON an accused has to present evidence in support of the defense
of lack of jurisdiction even if such lack of jurisdiction appears in the
evidence of the prosecution.
NO. THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE
OFFENSE OF ESTAFA WAS COMMITTED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE RTC OF MAKATI CITY
.
in the pleadings & court issuances, but for consistency, we
use the name Treas under which he was accused in the
information.
● Margarita Alocilja (Margarita) - was interested in
buying the parcel of land that was mortgaged with
Maybank
● Elizabeth Luciaja - employee & niece of
Margarita. She also represented Margarita in her
transactions with Atty. Hector Treas
PRESENT PETITION
● Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking
to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA)
Decision dated 9 July 2010 and Resolution dated 4
January 2011.
CRIMINAL CASE
● Estafa
HOW THE DISPUTE STARTED
● Margarita Alcojilia thru Elizabeth Luciaja
(Margarita’s niece) was interested to buy the house
and lot located in IloIlo that was mortgaged in
Maybank.
● The bank manager then recommended the
services of Hector Treas (Hector) for advice
regarding the transfer of title.
● Hector informed Luciaja of the expenses and soon
thereafter gave PHP150,000.00 who issued a
corresponding receipt.
● However, when she consulted with the BIR. she
was informed that the receipts issued by Hector
were all fake.
● When confronted, Hector admitted that the receipts
were fake and that he used the PHP120,000.00 for
his other transactions.
● To settle his accounts, Hector issued a Bank of
Commerce Check in the amount of PHP120,000.00
deducting PHP30,000.00 from PHP150,000.00 as
attorney’s fees. However when the check was
deposited with the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the
2
Under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC, the elements of estafa are as follows: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (4) there is demand by the offended party to the offender.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
● Even though it was stated in the information that the offense was
committed in Makati City (ordinarily this statement would have been
sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Makati), the Affidavit of
Complaint executed by Elizabeth did not contain any allegation as to
where the offense was committed.
● Aside from the lone allegation in the information, no other evidence
was presented by the prosecution to prove that the offense or any of
its elements was committed in Makati City.
● A review of the testimony of Elizabeth further shows that there was
no mention of the place where the offense was allegedly committed.
Although the prosecution alleged that the check issued by Treas was
dishonored in a bank in Makati, such dishonor is not an element of the
offense of estafa under Art 315, Par 1 (b) of the RPC 2.
● Other than the lone allegation in the information, there is nothing in
the prosecution evidence which even mentions that any of the
elements of the offense were committed in Makati.
Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
of 2000 provides that "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."
● It has been consistently held by this Court that it is unfair to require
a defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial
if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it
is not the court of proper venue.
● This fundamental principle is to ensure that the defendant is not
compelled 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.
● This principle echoes more strongly in this case, where, due to
distance constraints, coupled with his advanced age and failing
health, petitioner was unable to present his defense in the charges
against him.
CONCLUSION
● There being no showing that the offense was committed within
Makati, the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case.
● As such, there is no more need to discuss the other issue raised by
.
same was dishonored for the reason that the
account was closed.
PROCEDURE
An information was filed in the RTC of Makati City
● During arraignment, TREAS pleaded not guilty
allegedly due to old age and poor health and the
fact that he lives in Iloilo City, petitioner was unable
to attend the pre trial and trial of the case.
RTC rendered a decision finding Treas guilty of the
Crime of Estafa under Sec 1, par b of Article 315 of the
RPC1
● Treas then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which
was denied by the RTC.
Treas then filed a Notice of Appeal before the RTC
● To which the CA rendered a decision affirming that
of the RTC
Treas filed for a Motion for Reconsideration
● Denied by the CA
Treas then filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review on Certiorari
● He asked for a period of 15 days within which to file
this petition which was granted.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari
Arguments of the (Treas)
● Nowhere in the evidence presented does it show
that PHP150,000.00 was given to & received by
petitioner in Makati City.
● Instead, the evidence shows that the Receipt
issued by Luciaja for the money was dated Dec 22,
1999 without any indication of the place where it
was issued.
● The deed of sale with assumption of mortgage
prepared by Treas was signed and notarized in
Iloilo City on Dec 22, 1999 which logically means
that the money was actually delivered to him in
Iloilo City, especially since his residence and office
were situated there as well.
● Assuming there was appropriation, it was actually
Margarita and not Elizabeth who was the offended
1
Art 315, Sec 1 (b) by misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
petitioner.
GOOD TO KNOW CONCEPTS
● The overarching consideration in this case is the principle that, in
criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed
outside its limited territory.
● In, Isip v. People, the Court explained that the place where the crime
was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an
essential element of jurisdiction. 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
should have taken 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. 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 shows that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for
want of jurisdiction.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Petition isGRANTED. The Decision dated 9 July
2010 and the Resolution dated 4 January 2011 issued by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32177 are SET ASIDE on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 137, Makati City.
Criminal Case No. 01-2409 is DISMISSED without prejudice. This case is
REFERRED to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and
recommendation pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
party. Thus, the demand of Elizabeth does not
satisfy the requirement of prior demand by the
offended party in the offense of estafa.

Comment of the OSG

● Argues that the RTC did not err in convicting
TREAS as charged.
● TREAS also did not dispute the factual findings of
the TC with respect to the delivery of
PHP150,000.00 to him and that there was a
relationship of trust & confidence between him &
Elizabeth.
● With the claim regarding that the complaint should
have been filed in Iloilo City, TREAS’ claim was not
supported by any piece of evidence.
● With respect to the issue of no valid demand, the
OSG stresses that this was not raised in the lower
court. Nevertheless, the demand letter sent to
Elizabeth suffices, as she is also one of the
complainants alleged in the Information.
● However, the OSG submits that the Court may
recommend petitioner for executive clemency, in
view of his advanced age & failing.

VENUE or TERRITORY WHERE COMMITTED: PURPOSE

Jurisdiction can be waived?

Uy v. C.A., 276 SCRA 367 PARTIES INVOLVED
(1997) ● Petitioner Rosa Uy - Former accountant of the
husband of the complainant, Consolation Leong;
owner of a lumber business.
● Respondent CA and People of the Philippines -
Charged the petitioner with Estafa and violation of
BP22.
● Consolacion Leong - The complaining witness of
the crime.
CRIMINAL CASE: ESTAFA AND VIOLATION OF BP22
PRESENT PETITION: This is an appeal by Certiorari from
the decision of respondent Court of Appeals, which found
Rosa Uy guilty of violating Bp22.
ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA: Deceit and damage.
ELEMENTS OF BP22 VIOLATION: (a) making, drawing,
ISSUE: Whether or not RTC - Manila has jurisdiction to try the BP22
case. (No)
NO. The RTC-Manila did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense under
BP22.
● It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts
in criminal cases, the offense must be committed or any one of its
essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the court over a criminal
case is determined by the allegations in the complaint, but if the
evidence during trial shows that the offense was committed
elsewhere, the court should dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
● In this case, even if the court had already acquired jurisdiction over
the estafa case, it did not automatically acquire jurisdiction over the
BP22 case, the two being different offenses having different
elements and essential ingredients that would determine jurisdiction.
● No evidence was shown that the checks were issued, delivered,
dishonored, or knowledge of insufficiency of funds occured in
.
and issuance of any check. (b) knowledge of the maker,
drawer, issuer that he does not have sufficient funds to
cover the check. (c) the check is thereafter dishonored.
HOW THE DISPUTE STARTED
● Petitioner Rosa Uy and Consolacion were good
friends. After Rosa resigned from Don Tim
Shipping owned by the husband of Consolacion,
Consolacion and Rosa agreed to form a
partnership with the former contributing P500k, and
the latter being the industrial partner. No receipt
was issued.
● A lumber store was constructed but when their
friendship turned sour, Consolacion asked for her
investment back. Rosa issued 6 checks but were
dishonored.
● Consolacion then filed a complaint for estafa and
for violation of BP 22.
PROCEDURE IN THE RTC - MANILA Branch 32
● On December 10, 1984, an Information for Estafa,
and several other Informations were filed for the
violation of BP22.
● These cases were consolidated and tried jointly.
● Petitioner was charged with estafa and violation of
BP22, tried jointly.
● The prosecution used Consolacion Leong and
Alexander Bangit (manager of Commercial Bank of
Manila) as witnesses for the Estafa case. And used
Alexander Bangit as witness for the BP22 case.
● Petitioner used Fernando Abad and Antonio Sy as
her witnesses.
● RTC MANILA acquitted petitioner of Estafa but
convicted her of the violation of BP22.
RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
● Affirmed the decision of RTC.
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER
● RTC Manila has no jurisdiction over the BP22
violation.
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS
● RTC Manila has jurisdiction because it already
acquired jurisdiction in the estafa case.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Manila. Therefore, it does not follow that acquisition of jurisdiction
over the estafa case would also mean the acquisition of jurisdiction
over the BP22 case.
On the transitory nature of the offense of violating BP22.
● The knowledge by the maker or drawer of insufficiency of funds
simultaneous with the issuance was not proved by the prosecution.
On the jurisdiction by estoppel. NO. JURISDICTION CANNOT BE
WAIVED. (SIBONGHANOY CASE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE)
● Rule 117, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rule on CrimPro provides that the
accused may move to quash the complaint on the ground of no
jurisdiction over the person, and in Sec 8 of the same rule, the
motion to quash should be filed before he pleads to the complaint,
otherwise it shall be waived. It is clear that the petitioner timely
questioned the jurisdiction of the court.
● On the cited law, it can be seen that even if a party fails to file a
motion to quash, he can still question the jurisdiction of the court
later on. The objection can even be raised motu propio by the court
at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, finding the RTC MANILA to have no jurisdiction over
the BP 22 case, the assailed decision of respondent CA is reversed and set
aside without prejudice to the filing of appropriate charges against petitioner
with the court of competent jurisdiction.
GOOD TO KNOW CONCEPTS:
● In the crime of estafa, deceit and damage are essential elements.
For BP22, deceit and damage are not essential. The elements of
BP22 are (a) making, drawing and issuance of any check. (b)
knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that he does not have
sufficient funds. © check is dishonored.
.
VENUE or TERRITORY WHERE COMMITTED: PURPOSE
Change of Venue
A.M. No. 10-1-06-RTC :
January 12, 2010] Re:
Petition for Change of Trial
Venue of Criminal Case of
Ampatuan
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Facts Issue: WON the sareason that the DOJ posits is valid ground for a
December 23, 2009: Acting Secretary Agnes VST change in venue
Devanadera of the DOJ requested via a letter the
transfer of venue of the Ampatuan case. Held: YES.
· Reason: RTC of Cotabato City to the RTC of Law relevant:
Quezon City because of the following: Paragraph 4, Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution: Court may order a
Status of the Philippines for Journalists change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
The events occurring in the aftermath of Purpose of the provision: To ferret out the truth from the opposing
the Maguindanao Massacre reinforce the claims of the parties in a controversy by means of a fair and
notion that the Philippines is now the most impartial inquiry.
dangerous place for journalists
The issue as a flagship case The Court allows for a change in venue from the court of original jurisdiction
The case is considered by media when such would prevent a miscarriage of justice.
organizations as a flagship case because ● Such reasons for doing so should be serious and weighty:
of the interest it has generated in the local ● Reluctance of witnesses to testify-out of fear for their personal
and international press due to the security.
perceived clout of the suspects who ● A hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of the trial,
belong to very influential and powerful giving rise to the possibility that his life could be placed in danger.
political clans that virtually rule
Maguindanao as its fiefdom; Note: Camp Crame was a convenient option due to the fact that adequate
Venue compromises witnesses’ willingness equipment and facilities sufficient to accommodate the court personnel,
towards disclosure counsels of the parties and the parties and witnesses to ensure the safety
● Although a panel of prosecutors and security of the Presiding judge, the court personnel and the parties and
composed of city, provincial and state their counsels and witnesses.
prosecutors has been formed to prosecute
this case, witnesses remain reluctant to FALLO: CHANGE IN VENUE --- GRANTED
fully disclose what they know if the case
will be tried in the very heart of the
accused's territory; and
● These factors do not instill confidence in
the mind of potential witnesses, court
personnel and complainants that their
security will not be compromised if trial
is held in Maguindanao.
January 4, 2010: Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun (counsel
for the accused) via a letter opposed the request for
change of venue
· Reason:
● It will be practical and protective of the accused's
right to due process if venue be maintained in
Mindanao for accessibility to the courts and
.
PERSON of the ACCUSED: Must one submit to court’s jurisdiction for relief?
De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No.
162416, Jan. 31, 2006
“He who invokes court’s
jurisdiction must first submit
to its jurisdiction”
convenience to those charged.
● Requests that venue remain in Cotabato City or
any other appropriate place in Mindanao, such as
Davao City or General Santos City.
Petitioner: Chester de Joya - one of the incorporators of
State Resources Development Management Corporation
What is the action?
● This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition that
seeks the Court to nullify and set aside the warrant
of arrest issued by respondent judge against
petitioner in criminal case at bar; asserting that
respondent judge erred in finding the existence of
probable cause that justifies the issuance of a
warrant of arrest against him and his co-accused.
FACTS:
● Manuel Dy Awiten filed a complaint against Mina
Tan Hao and Victor Ngo for syndicated estafa
● Awiten alleged that Hao induced him to invest more
than 100 Million pesos in State Resources
Development Management Corporation but when
investments fell due, the checks issued in his favor
were dishonored for being drawn against
insufficient funds/ account closed.
● That among the incorporators/members of said
corporation is petitioner Chester De Joya
● The court found that the files sufficiently
established existence of probable cause as
required before the issuance of warrant of arrest.
● That petitioner and his co-accused, being
incorporators and directors of the corporation, had
knowledge of its activities and transactions.
● These are all that need to be shown to establish
probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant
of arrest. It need not be shown that the accused
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ISSUE: WON petitioner De Joya is entitled to seek relief from the Court for
the nullification and setting aside of the warrant arrest issued by the lower
court
RULING:
● Petitioner is not entitled to seek relief from the Court or from the trial
court as he continuously refuses to surrender & submit to the court’s
jurisdiction
● Requisites for exercise of jurisdiction:
○ Plaintiff/petitioner - by filing of complaint
○ Defendant/respondent - voluntary appearance/submission
to the court/by coercive process issued by the court to him
○ Subject matter - conferred by law
○ Issues of the case - conferred by the pleadings filed in the
case
○ res/property of the thing - actua;/constructive seizure by the
court of the things
● There is no exceptional reason to allow petitioner to obtain relief
from the courts without submitting to its jurisdiction
● De Joya’s continuous refusal to submit to the court’s jurisdiction
should give the court more reason to uphold the action
● The purpose of the warrant of arrest is to place the accused under
the custody of the law to hold him for trial of charges against him
● He who invokes court’s jurisdiction must first submit to its jurisdiction
GOOD TO KNOW DOCTRINE:
● Probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest pertains to facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested.
●
.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
are indeed guilty of the crime charged
● Petitioner now seeks to nullify the warrant of arrest
issued by respondent judge

PERSON of the ACCUSED: Seeking affirmative relief submits to court’s jurisdiction

Jimenez v. Sorongon, supra (2) YES. Carmen voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s
*repeated jurisdiction. JURISDICTION ISSUE
● As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Filing pleadings
seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the
consequent jurisdiction of one's person to the jurisdiction of the
court.
● Thus, by filing several motions before the RTC seeking the
dismissal of the criminal case, respondent Alamil voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC.
.
PERSON of the ACCUSED: Relief but “neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law”; Special Appearance
Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA
377, Mar. 31, 2006
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PARTIES INVOLVED: ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in affirming that the accused cannot seek any
Petitioner: Jose C. Miranda, Alberto P. Dalmacio and judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the
Romeo B. Ocon court. - YES
Respondent: Virgilio M. Tuliao
Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither
HOW THE DISPUTE STARTED
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over the
● March 8 1996: Two burnt cadavers were
body of the accused. Therefore, CA erred in holding that the urgent motion
discovered in Ramon, Isabela which were later
cannot be properly heard.
identified as the bodies of Vicente Bauzon and
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
Elizer Tuliao, son of the private respondent Virgilio
● Seeking an affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal
Tuliao
proceedings, constitute voluntary appearance. Voluntary
● Two informations for murder were filed against 5
appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction
police officers in the RTC-Santiago. The venue was
over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits
later transferred to the RTC-Manila, who later
(ex. by filing a motion to quash, appearing for arraignment, entering
convicted the accused and sentenced them two
trial) or by filing bail.
counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal
○ EXP: pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance
who was yet to be arraigned at that time being at
of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special
large. Upon automatic review, the SC acquitted the
appearance.
accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.
These pleadings are:
● Sept. 1999: Maderal was arrested. He executed a
(1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of
sworn confession and identified the petitioners as
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
the people responsible for the death of the victims.
whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included;
Thus, Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder
(2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of
against the petitioners.
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
● Judge Tumaliuan issued a warrant of arrest against
(3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest. (this case falls under
the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
this exception)
● Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete
The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would
preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to
constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person.
recall/quash the warrant of arrest.
● In the hearing of the urgent motion, Judge
CUSTODY OF LAW
Tumaliuan noted the absence of the petitioners and
● Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the
issued a Joint order denying the urgent motion on
application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other
the ground that since the court did not acquire
reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor
jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot
constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
be properly heard by the court.
person of the accused. It is accomplished either by arrest or
● In the meantime, petitioners appealed the
voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the
resolution of State Prosecutor Reyes to DOJ.
accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.
● Aug. 17, 2001: Judge Anghad took over the case
● One can be under the custody of law but not yet subject to the
and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order
jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person
of Judge Tumaliuan and ordered the cancellation of
arrested by virtue of warrant files a motion to quash the warrant
the warrant of arrest.
before arraignment.
● Oct. 25, 2001: respondent Tuliao filed before the
.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SC a petition for certiorari, mandamus and ● Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who
prohibition with prayer for TRO, seeking to enjoin is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to
Judge Anghad from the case and seeking to nullify become obedient to the will of the law.
his Orders.
● Nov. 12, 2001, SC granted the prayer for TRO FALLO: Petition DENIED. SC affirmed Dec. 18, 2002 CA decision reinstating
against Judge Anghad from the cases. Shortly the cases and issuing warrants of arrest.
after, Judge Anghad issued a Joint Order
dismissing the two informations for murder against
petitioners.
● Respondent Tuliao filed before the SC a Motion to
Cite Public Respondent in Contempt, which the
SC referred to the CA in view of the previous
referral to it of respondent’s petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus.
● Dec. 18, 2002: CA granted the petition and ordered
the reinstatement of the criminal cases in the RTC-
Santiago City, as well as the issuance of warrants
of arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
- Jurisdiction over the person is required only in the
adjudication of applications for bail.
- Assuming it is required before court can act on
their motion to quash, such is acquired by filing the
Urgent Motion

PERSON of the ACCUSED: Custody of law not required for relief

David v. Agbay, G.R. No.
199113, March 18, 2015
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF (EDITHA AGBAY)
● Renato David migrated to Canada and he became
a Canadian citizen.
● Upon their retirement, petitioner and his wife
returned to the Philippines. They purchased a 600
sqm beach lot in Oriental Mindoro. However, in the
year 2004, they ca me to know that the portion
where they built their house is public land and part
of the salvage zone.
● Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application
(MLA) over the subject land with the DENR at the
Community Envt & Nat Res Office (CENRO); in the
said application, petitioner indicated that he is a
Filipino citizen.
ISSUES:
1. WON Custody of law is required for adjudication of reliefs NO.
2. WON David may be indicted for falsification for representing himself
as Filipino in his application despite his subsequent reacquisition of
citizenship under RA 922. YES
RULING
● MTC cited lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner accused
as ground for denying petitioner's motion for re-determination of
probable cause. However, custody of the law is not required for
the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail.
● Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary
surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
.
❖ Opposed the application on the ground that
petitioner, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own
land and filed a criminal complaint for falsification
of public documents under Article 172 RPC.
Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship
under the provisions of Republic Act No. 9225 issued by the
Consulate General of the Philippines Toronto.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS (RENATO DAVID)
❖ For his defense David stated that he intended to
be Filipino again and that he was allowed by the
officer in charge to state in his application that he is
Filipino.
❖ Alleged that the Agbays made misrepresentations
for which David bought the subject property.
2nd issue:
● Provincial Prosec found probable cause
○ David filed for a petition for review before
DOJ
● CENRO rejected the MLA of David for being void
ab initio.
● Petition for review was denied by DOJ
● an Information for Falsification of Public Document
was filed before the MTC and a warrant of arrest
was issued.
RULING OF MTC
● Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Re-
Determination of Probable Cause in the MTC.
● The crime charged was committed before he had
re-acquired his Philippine citizenship; the MTC
concluded that petitioner was at that time still a
Canadian citizen. Motion was denied for lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
● David filed for MR but was still denied.
RULING OF RTC
● David elevated the case to the RTC via a petition
for certiorari, alleging GAD on the part of the MTC.
● He asserted that jurisdiction over the person of an
accused cannot be a pre-condition for the re-
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.
● One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, 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 over his person,
and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when accused
escapes custody after his trial has commenced
● Jurisprudence holds that one who seeks an affirmative relief is
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court;
whether in civil or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary
appearance.
● David sought affirmative relief in filing his motion for re-
determination of probable cause, the MTC clearly erred in stating
that it lacked jurisdiction over his person.
● However RTC correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion was
committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for lack of merit.
● R.A. 9225, otherwise known as the "Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003, Section 2 declares the general policy that
Filipinos who have become citizens of another country shall be
deemed "not to have lost their Philippine citizenship," such is
qualified by the phrase "under the conditions of this Act."
● Section 3 lays down such conditions for two categories of natural-
born Filipinos ,under the first paragraph are those natural-born
Filipinos who have lost their citizenship by naturalization in a foreign
country who shall RE-ACQUIRE their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The
second paragraph covers those natural-born Filipinos who became
foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, who shall RETAIN their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath.
● Petitioner insists that the court should not distinguish between re-
acquisition and retention in R.A. 9225.
● He asserts that in criminal cases, that interpretation of the law which
favors the accused is preferred but this is MISPLACED because RA
9225 is not a penal statute.
● Petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the
effectivity of R.A. 9225, he belongs to the first category of natural-
born Filipinos under the first paragraph of Section 3. ( So sa case
nila REACQUIRED not retained)
● While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six
months later, the falsification was already a consummated act, the
said law having no retroactive effect; MTC therefore did not err in
finding probable cause.
.
B. OTHER PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION: Jurisdiction until termination; “trial in absentia” and right to present evidence
Gimenez v. Nazareno, G.R. No.
L-37933 April 15, 1988**
CATCH ME IF YOU CAN! (the
escaping prisoner case)
An escapee who has been duly
tried in absentia waives his right
to present evidences on his own
behalf and to confront and cross-
examine witnesses who testified
against him.
determination of probable cause and that his
Filipino citizenship is deemed not to have been
lost.
● Prosecutor emphasized that the act of falsification
was already consummated as petitioner has not yet
re-acquired his Philippine citizenship.
● RTC issued the assailed Order denying the petition
for certiorari.
PARTIES INVOLVED:
● Samson Suan, Alex Potot, Rogelio Mula, Fernando
Teodoro, Rogelio Baguio, and Teodoro de la Vega
Jr.: accused for the crime of murder
● Fiscal Celso Gimenez and Federico Mercado:
Handling fiscals
● Ramon E. Nazareno: Respondent judge
HOW THE CASE STARTED:
● The above-mentioned accused were charged for
the crime of MURDER
● On the day of their arraignment, each of them
PLEADED NOT GUILTY to the crime charged
● Following the arraignment, Judge Nazareno set the
hearing of the case for September 18, 1973. All the
accused were duly informed of such hearing
● Before the scheduled date of the first hearing,
Teodoro de la Vega, escaped from his detention
center and failed to appear in court for the hearing.
(IMPORTANT EVENT)
● Due to de la Vega’s act of escaping, it prompted
the fiscal to file a motion to proceed with the
hearing of the case despite the fact that de la Vega
has escaped.
PROCEDURES IN RTC
GIMENEZ (the handling fiscal: Filed Motion to Proceed
the Hearing Against the Accused
● PRAYER: That de la Vega be tried in absentia and
invoking the application of Section 19, Article IV of
1973 Constitution which allows that “after
arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
FALLO: Petition Denied, RTC Affirmed
ISSUES:
· WON the court loses jurisdiction over an accused who after being
arraigned, escapes from the custody of the law
· WON de la Vega shall be tried in absentia
· WON an accused who has been tried in absentia retains his right to
present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross- examine
witnesses who testified against him
FIRST ISSUE
NO. THE COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED, ONCE ACQUIRED, IS NOT LOST UPON THE INSTANCE OF
THE PARTIES BUT CONTINUES UNTIL THE CASE IS TERMINATED
· AS A RULE, where the accused appears at the arraignment and pleads
not guilty to the crime charged, jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his
person and this continues until the termination of the case, notwithstanding
his escape from the custody of the law
· IN THIS CASE, since de la Vega attended the arraignment, the lower
court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person and such jurisdiction is
not terminated despite the fact the he escaped from the custody of the law
SECOND ISSUE
YES. DE LA VEGA SHALL BE TRIED IN ABSENTIA
· The following requisites for trial in absentia were present in the case
1. That there has been an arraignment,
Ø De la Vega was arraigned on August 22, 1973 and he pleaded not guilty
2. that the accused has been notified;
Ø He was also informed of the scheduled hearings set on September 18 and
19, 1973 and this is evidenced by his signature on the notice issued by the
lower court
3. that he fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified.
Ø Failure of de la Vega to appear is proven by a certified copy of the Police
Blotter he escaped from his detention center.
.
absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified”
RTC: Granted such motion and proceeded with the trial
of the case
● The trial against de la Vega continued despite his
absence but the court granted him the opportunity
to take the witness stand the moment he shows up
in court
RTC: Decision on the Murder Case Filed Against the
Accused
● The lower court DISMISSED the case against the
five accused while HOLDING IN ABEYANCE the
proceedings against de la Vega
● The lower court likewise ordered the City Warden
of Lapu-lapu to release the 5 accused if they are no
longer serving sentence of conviction
● With regard to de la Vega (the escaping prisoner)
● The lower court ruled that the case against him
shall remain pending without prejudice on the part
of the said accused to cross-examine the
witnesses for the prosecution and to present his
defense whenever the court acquires back the
jurisdiction over his person (CONTESTED
PORTION OF THE DECISION)
GIMENEZ: Filed a Motion for Reconsideration
● GROUND: the decision of RTC will render nugatory
the constitutional provision on “trial in absentia”
● The trial against de la Vega shall proceed despite
his absence and it should NOT be held in
abeyance
● Further, de la Vega should not be given the
opportunity to cross-examine the witness and
present his evidence.
RTC: Denied the MR
● Under Section 19, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution, de la Vega, who was tried in absentia,
DID NOT lose his right to cross -examine the
witnesses for the prosecution and present his
evidence because ALL ACCUSED SHOULD BE
PRESSUMED INNOCENT
● Furthermore, the lower court maintains that
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Ø No explanation for his failure to appear in court in any of the scheduled
hearings was given.
Ø Even the trial court considered his absence unjustified
THE RTC IS WRONG IN SUSPENDING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
DE LA VEGA FOR RENDERED INEFFECTIVE THE TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
· Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule
upon the evidence presented in court.
· The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape from
custody finally decides to appear in court to present his evidence and cross-
examine the witnesses against him.
· To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render
ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in absentia.
THE ACT OF RENDERING JUDGMENT AGAINST DE LA VEGA DESPITE
HIS ABSENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED
INNOCENT
· He is still presumed innocent. A judgment of conviction must still be
based upon the evidence presented in court.
· Such evidence must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
· Also, there can be no violation of due process since the accused was
given the opportunity to be heard.
THIRD ISSUE
NO. DE LA VEGA NO LONGER RETAINED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-
EXAMINE AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS BEHALF. IT HAS BEEN
VIRTUALLY WAIVED DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO APPEAR DURING THE
TRIAL
· AS A RULE: The right of the accused to confrontation and cross-
examination of witnesses is a personal right and may be waived. In the same
vein, his right to present evidence on his behalf, a right given to him for his
own benefit and protection, may be waived by him
· IN THIS CASE, de la Vega’s failure to appear during the trial of which
he had notice has the effect of virtually waiving his right to cross-examine the
witness and present his own evidence
· Also, the Court pointed out that based on Section 1 paragraph C of Rule
115 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
“ The absence of the accused without any justifiable cause at the trial on a
particular date of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his
right to be present during that trial”
CONCLUSION
an escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives his right to present
evidences on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses
who testified against him.
.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
jurisdiction over private respondent de la Vega, Jr.
was lost when he escaped and that his right to
cross-examine and present evidence must not be
denied him once jurisdiction over his person is
reacquired
NOTE: The case was not brought up to the CA; thus, no
proceedings before the CA

OTHER PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION: Jurisdiction not subject to waiver or agreement

.
Figueroa v. People, 558 SCRA PARTIES INVOLVED
63 ● Petitioner Venancio Figueroa y Cervantes –
(2008) driver and person-in charge of German Espiritu
Bus, which hit one Rodolfo Lopez y Amparado,
causing physical injuries which resulted to his
death
● Respondent People of the Phil
PROCEDURE IN RTC BULACAN
INFORMATION FILED: Reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide against Figueroa for the death of Rodolfo
Amparado
RULING OF RTC:
● Petitioner was guilty of Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide with a penalty of
imprisonment for 2 years 10 months and 21 days -
4 yrs 2 months
PROCEDURE IN THE CA
FIGUEROA: Appealed questioning for the first time
RTC’S jurisdiction
RULING OF CA: Affirmed RTC with modification.
● Petitioner actively participated in the trial; he only
belatedly attacked the jurisdiction of the RTC and is
thus estopped by laches.
● Petitioner was guilty of Homicide through Reckless
Imprudence with violation of Land Transportation
and Traffic Code. Penalty - 1 year 4 months and 1
day of prision correccional as minimum - 3 years 6
months and 20 days of prision correccional
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE, SEC 32(2) OF
BP 129 OR THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF
1980 WAS AMENDED BY RA 7691
● “ for cases not falling under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTCs and Sandiganbayan, the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six
years.”
● Since the imposable penalty is prision correccional
medium > maximum (2yrs, 4mos 1d > 6yrs), the
MTC has jurisdiction and not the RTC.
PROCEDURE IN SC
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of
the RTC finding him guilty of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide
(NO)
NO, PETITIONER IS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSAILING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE RTC.
THE GENERAL RULE REMAINS THAT THE LACK OF JURISDICTION
CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE, EVEN ON APPEAL. IT IS CONFERRED
BY LAW AND LACK OF IT AFFECTS THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT
TO TAKE COGNIZANCE AND ACT.
● The fact that a person attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of
a court does not estop him from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction
over the subject matter, since such jurisdiction must arise by law
and not by mere consent of the parties.
● Applying the doctrine in the case at bar, the petitioner is in no way
estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC,
considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before the
appellate court. At that time, no considerable period had yet elapsed
for laches to attach.
● Delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of
"estoppel by laches" unless it appears that the party, knowing his
rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition of the party
pleading laches in good faith becomes so changed that he cannot
be restored to his former state
● The principle of estoppel by laches applied in the case of
Sibonghanoy does not apply in this instant case.
THE COURT CITED PREVIOUS RULINGS IN SETTLING THE ISSUE ON
JURISDICTION vis-a-vis ESTOPPEL BY LACHES
● Tijam v Sibonghanoy: the Court held that a party may be barred by
laches. For reasons of public policy, a party cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief then deny the
jurisdiction upon failing to obtain the same.
● However, in Calimlim v. Ramirez, the Court noted that the issue of
jurisdiction in Sibonghanoy was raised 15 years after the ruling has
been rendered. The court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is not lost
by waiver or estoppel.
● While Sibonghanoy became doctrine in other cases, the ruling in
Sibonghanoy on the matter of jurisdiction is the exception rather
than the general rule. Thus, estoppel by laches may be invoked to
bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual
milieu is analogous to that in the cited case.
● In such controversies, laches should be clearly present; that is,
lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so belatedly as to
.
FIGUEROA: Petition for review on certiorari of CA
Decision
● Lack of jurisdiction may be raised anytime, even for
the first time on appeal and since undue delay is
not present, laches does not apply.
CA & SOLICITOR GENERAL
● Principle of estoppel by laches has already
precluded petitioner from questioning the
jurisdiction of RTC as he participated in the 4-year
long trial without raising the infirmity of the court.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had
abandoned or declined to assert it.
FALLO : WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on
certiorari is GRANTED. Criminal Case No. 2235-M-94 is hereby DISMISSED
without prejudice.
GOOD TO KNOW CONCEPTS
LACHES
● failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier
● it negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it
.
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE