CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.
ENRIQUEZ
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Riano cited the case of People v. Lacson (400 SCRA
267) which referred to Criminal Procedure as a set of
rules which somehow provides for the steps in
prosecuting a person who commits an offense. So
according to Riano, Criminal Procedure regulates the
steps on how to prosecute a person who is
committing an offense for him to be punished.
That’s why in your Criminal Law, you know what acts
or omission are considered as crimes. But here in
Criminal Procedure, our thrust here is to know how to
prosecute the crimes as thus defined under the
Revised Penal Code. Because in Criminal Law II, you
only know what acts or things are considered as
crimes but you do not know how to prosecute cases,
and that is now the beauty of having rules in Criminal
Procedure. But when I read the case of People v.
Lacson as cited in Riano, and when I read also the
definition of what Criminal Procedure is, with due
respect, I tend to disagree. Because as mentioned
therein, CrimPro regulates the steps by which a
person who commits a crime is to be punished, when
for me CrimPro is not a one-sided affair. For me,
CrimPro likewise sets forth or provides the steps on
how a person accused of a crime may be defended
in court. It is a two-way traffic. That’s why we have
procedures dealing with filing of motion to quash the
information, authorizing the outright dismissal of a
criminal case even without proceeding to a trial. You
can move to quash the information if for example,
the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused or over the subject matter of the case. You
can invoke double jeopardy and move for the
dismissal of the case. And if you look at the rules of
CrimPro, there are provisions therein dealing with
arrest and search. That’s why I cannot agree when it
is said in that case of Lacson that CrimPro simply
provides the steps by which a person who commits a
crime is to be punished, because for me it also
provides for the steps on how to possibly defend a
person in court. After all, there is a presumption that
accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So
for me, CrimPro is not a one-way affair. It works for
the prosecution in like manner that it also works for
the defense.
It is also said that in our jurisdiction, the kind of
criminal justice that we have is considered as
adversarial or accusatorial. Adversarial in the sense
that almost always in a criminal case, there are 2
parties: the State which accuses a person, and the
accused. I think you already know the reason why in
a criminal case, the caption of the case is not Renato
Galeon v. Torregosa. The caption is People of the
Philippines v. Torregosa. Why is that? Because the
1
crimes are considered to be a crime against the State,
such that the private complainant is now relegated to
become the private complaining witness in a case.
Although there may be awards and damages unto
him, but the fact remains that it is to be captioned
People v. Accused. The fact also remains that it is an
adversarial proceeding. We have the People of the
Philippines who accuses somebody of committing a
crime, and on the other hand we have the accused
who is to oppose the contention of the State. So the
State commences the action, it files a case, then there
will be trial. The State now will prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, and on his part
the accused will also put up his defense.
But we have a third party. It is also said that ours is
accusatorial or adversarial in that there are 2 parties,
but in actuality we have a third party, and that is the
judge. But the good thing is under an adversarial or
accusatorial criminal justice system, the judge is there
simply to hear the case, receive the evidence, but he
does not have to side with any of the parties. But of
course after the trial, the judge has to render a verdict
as may be supported by evidence. But as a rule, the
judge should stay neutral. If at all the judge is biased,
then he should be biased in favor of the truth, but he
should not take side with any of the parties.
Unlike in an inquisitorial criminal justice system,
where the judge takes an active role not just in
hearing the case but also in gathering the evidence
and also in gathering the facts. So in an
accusatorial/adversarial criminal justice system, the
judge acts as the referee, but in an inquisitorial
criminal justice system, the judge takes an active role
not only in hearing the case but also in gathering the
evidence/facts. In fact the judge will actively
participate in conducting some kind of direct
examination or cross examination as the case may
be. But perhaps you may ask, how come that in our
jurisdiction, sometimes the judge would ask questions
on witnesses? Is it not indicative that perhaps ours is
also inquisitorial in character? Once you become
lawyers, you take note that sometimes, judges would
ask questions on witnesses, when normally the direct
examination is conducted by the lawyer for the
complaining party and the cross-examination will be
conducted by the opposing party. But there are
situations when the judge will also participate in the
trial and ask questions. Does that mean that ours is
also inquisitorial in character? It does not matter,
because just the same in asking questions, the judge
is simply asking clarificatory questions. The judge is
not actually helping the prosecution or defense. He
merely wants things to be clarified especially for the
guidance of the court in coming up with a fair
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
resolution. So the fact remains that ours is adversarial
or accusatorial justice system and not inquisitorial.
But I don’t know if you’ve already observed the
proceeding conducted under the purported revision
on Civil Procedure when it comes to handling nullity
cases. For me, the proceedings in nullity cases
(marriage cases) somehow partake of the nature of
an inquisitorial justice system. Why? Because in nullity
cases, it is actually now the judge who asks questions
on the witnesses, complainant and respondent.
Normally, the lawyers for the parties will just be there
and listen and observe the proceedings. Unless
allowed by the judge, they cannot ask or propound
questions. So to some extent, the proceedings in
cases for nullity of marriage somehow partake of the
nature of an inquisitorial proceeding, but that is not
observed in criminal cases. That is only applicable in
civil cases for nullity of marriage.
So as for our criminal justice system, there is no
gainsaying the fact that ours remains to be
accusatorial or adversarial, and not inquisitorial.
INTERPRETATION
We have rules dealing with CrimPro. The trouble now
is, how are we going to interpret the rules? In case of
doubt, in whose favor shall such doubt be resolved?
Accused.
First we should be guided by the provisions under
Section 6 Rule 1 to the end that there should be a
literal construction of the rules of court so as to attain
its objective which is to promote or attain a just,
speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases. We
hasten to add that in construing the provisions of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, should there be
any doubt, then such doubt must be resolved not in
favor of the State but in favor of the accused. It is not
enough that we construe the provisions of the rules
liberally in that in case of doubt, any such doubt must
be resolved in favor of the accused. What’s the
reason for that? It’s because we have this
constitutional presumption of innocence. More than
that, we have to tilt the balance in favor of the
accused because he is up against the State, which is
a formidable machinery. Daghan og resources ang
government. Unless the accused is rich, he is helpless
against the machinery of the State. That’s why any
doubt in the interpretation of criminal procedures
must be resolved in favor of the accused, never in
favor of the State.
To emphasize the liberality of the construction of the
rules, Riano in his book cited the case of Cariaga v.
People (GR No. 180010, July 30, 2010). There was
a case handled by a previous lawyer. The accused
was convicted. The case ought to have been
2
appealed to the Sandiganbayan, but instead it was
appealed to the CA - so under Section 2 Rule 15 of
the Rules of Court – so the appeal should have been
dismissed outright. But the accused, through a new
counsel, petitioned the Supreme Court that his
appeal be just transferred from the CA to the
Sandiganbayan when it should have been dismissed
outright. Owing to the liberality of the construction of
the rules, the SC granted the prayer of the accused.
After all, we should not sanction a situation where the
liberty of persons will be put at the sacrificial alter of
technicalities. So rules should be liberally construed,
more so that in case of doubt, it should be resolved
in favor of the accused.
It happened in one of the cases that I handled. It was
argued that under the circular mandating continuous
trials, there are now prohibited motions. I filed a
(prohibited) motion, the prosecutor argued that such
was a prohibited motion, then the judge asked the
prosecutor if the said motion is mentioned in the
circular identifying prohibited motions. But the
prosecutor could not cite any provision to the end that
the motion that I filed was included in the
enumeration of prohibited motions. So I cited this
liberality in the construction of the rules in favor of the
accused, and we were sustained. So indeed, any
doubt in the interpretation on the rules of criminal
procedure must be resolved in favor of the accused.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS
Corollary to the rule that the rules must be construed
liberally and that doubts must be resolved in favor of
the accused, we must be guided by the principles that
in criminal cases, the court must observe the
rudiments of procedural due process. In your Consti
II, you were already familiar with the requirements of
procedural due process as observed in criminal
proceedings:
1. Due process demands that there should be a
competent court clothed with the power or
authority to decide the legal matter before it.
That court must also be an impartial court.
2. The court must acquire jurisdiction over the
accused.
3. There should be opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered only after trial.
COMPETENT/IMPARTIAL COURT
The first requirement for due process as observed in
an actual criminal case is that there should be a
competent court, and it should be an impartial court
having jurisdiction over the case, or that it should
have the power or competence to decide the legal
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
matter before it. Towards that end, you should recall
the provision under Section 1 Rule 137 ROC
providing the grounds under which the judge may be
requested to inhibit himself from handling the case,
such that if you perceive that the court is biased, you
may want to file a motion for the inhibition of the
judge. That is of course sanction under the rules
because there is this requirement that there should be
an impartial and competent court.
Section1 Rule 137 ROC
Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or
judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or
his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir,
legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is
related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the
fourth degree, computed according to the rules
of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in
which he has presided in any inferior court when
his ruling or decision is the subject of review,
without the written consent of all parties in
interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record.
Such that under Rule 137 of the ROC, if one of the
party-disputants happens to be the son, daughter, or
wife of the judge, in that situation, if you are the
adverse party, you can move for the inhibition of the
judge, and the judge cannot refuse. (Do you think
ikiha ka og oral defamation, then ang complainant
is ang wife sa judge, do you think you have a chance
to win your case before the judge?) In that situation,
you can move for the inhibition of the judge because
it is a requirement that the court must be impartial.
Also, in case one of the parties is related to the judge
within the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity, then
you can also move for the inhibition of the judge. (Dili
niya asawa, but iyahang daughter-in-law, nephew,
or niece, then you stand to lose).
Or if the opposing counsel is related to the judge by
consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree,
then you can move for the inhibition of the judge,
consistent with procedural due process as observed
in criminal proceedings.
Or for example, there is a matter pending before the
judge, and then he happens to be an executor,
trustee, or guardian with respect to the matter, then
you can also move for the inhibition.
Or if for example you are handling a case on appeal
before the RTC, the case emanated from the MTC,
but the judge in the RTC was the one who penned the
3
decision before the MTC. Do you think the judge will
reverse his own decision? No way!
So under those situations, you can move for the
inhibition of the judge consistent with procedural due
process which should be observed not only in civil
cases, but more so in criminal cases. Why? Because
we are talking here of the liberty of the accused. So if
due process is demanded in civil cases, then all the
more that it should be observe in criminal cases,
because we are talking about the liberty of a person.
Okay ra na ang property kay makit-an ra man na.
But liberty of a person is very precious.
But the question is, what if you perceive the judge to
be biased, but the situation does not fall squarely
under any of the grounds mentioned in Section 1 Rule
137? Atty. Galeon said that you may consider
inviting/creating a ground. He said they did that in
one case, where they argued with the judge right or
wrong. The arguments will be put in the TSN. When
they appealed, they were able to argue that the judge
was biased and was sustained. But Atty. Galeon does
not recommend this since there is the risk of being
cited in contempt. This is what we call Legal
Engineering.
One thing is clear, the judge should remain impartial
and neutral, because that is a requirement of due
process.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED
How can the court acquire jurisdiction over the
accused in a criminal case? Okay lang sa civil cases
because once the defendant is served upon with
summons, the court already acquires jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant. But there is no summons
in criminal cases. So how can the court validly acquire
jurisdiction over the accused? If accused is already
lawfully arrested. If for example after filing
Information in court, and within 10 days therefrom
the court determines that there is probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and the court
issues the same, and the accused is arrested pursuant
thereto, then accused is already under the jurisdiction
of the court. Otherwise stated, the court already
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
And even if the accused is not arrested but during
arraignment the accused appears and participates
therein, then by his voluntary appearance before the
court, accused therefore places himself under the
jurisdiction of the court. But the fact remains that
when accused is already arrested validly, then the
court already acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the accused. So it’s not always upon arraignment. It’s
upon the arrest of the accused.
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
But what is going to happen if for example, accused
files a motion to quash the information? An
information is filed in court. Within 10 days, the court
issues a warrant and accused is arrested, but the
accused files a motion to quash the information,
asking for an affirmative relief which is for the
dismissal of the case on the ground that he stands to
be put twice in jeopardy of the same offense. Or let’s
vary the situation. Accused has not been arrested, but
he files a motion to quash the information on the
ground that there is double jeopardy. Question: by
filing such motion, does the court already acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused?
Otherwise stated, by filing such motion, does the
accused already submit to the jurisdiction of the
court? Because he files the motion asking for an
affirmative relief asking for the dismissal of the
action. What if the ground for the motion to quash is
that the court does not have jurisdiction over the
person of the accused, contending that his arrest was
illegal? Or that the court does not have jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the case because according
to the accused, the case is cognizable not by the MTC
but by the RTC? Does the filing of any such motion to
quash amount already to the submission to the
jurisdiction of the court? You take note that in the
above examples, the grounds for the motions to
quash are different, but the desired result is the same,
which is the dismissal of the action. By filing such
motion to quash (on the ground of double jeopardy),
the accused is asking for an affirmative relief, which
is the dismissal of the case. So by filing such motion
to quash, the accused already submits to the
jurisdiction of the court. But where the ground for the
motion to quash is lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the accused or that the court has no jurisdiction
over the offense, such motion to quash is not
equivalent to submitting himself to the jurisdiction of
the court, even if the accused is praying for an
affirmative relief. So where the ground is under
Section 3 paragraphs b and c Rule 117 ROC, then
the motion to quash cannot be considered as
amounting to a submission by the accused to the
jurisdiction of the court, even if in such motion to
quash the accused is praying for an affirmative relief.
Section 3 Rule 117 ROC
Sec. 3. Grounds. – The accused may move to quash the
complaint or information on any of the following
grounds:
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the offense charged;
ACCUSED MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE (c)
HEARD
That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the person of the accused;
But as what you may have learned in your Consti II,
when we speak of due process as observed in actual
4
cases, it simply means that the parties be given the
opportunity to be heard. Such that in a criminal case,
accused had been given to be heard and present
countervailing evidence, but he squanders away the
chance given him, or that he rather invokes his right
against self-incrimination, accused therefore cannot
decry that he was denied due process. Because due
process simply demands that he has been given the
opportunity to be heard. Example, after the
prosecution rested its case, normally it would now be
the turn of the defense to present his evidence. But
instead of presenting evidence, accused filed a
demurrer to evidence even without leave of court. If
you do that and your demurrer to evidence is denied,
then you cannot anymore present your countervailing
evidence. The rule on mirisi applies, and you cannot
argue that you are denied due process because you
were already given the chance to be heard only that
you squandered the opportunity for you to present
your evidence. So due process simply demands that
the accused is given the opportunity to be heard. If
that is not availed of by the accused, the rule on mirisi
applies.
JUDGMENT RENDERED ONLY AFTER TRIAL
It’s very obvious. You cannot put the cart before the
horse, so to peak. You cannot render judgment
before the presentation of evidence. Klaro na nga
prejudgment. So judgment should only be rendered
after trial or after reception of evidence.
So you take note of these requirements of due process
as observed in criminal proceedings because
observance of due process in criminal proceedings is
important.
JURISDICTION
It was mentioned earlier that criminal procedure
precisely is there to put the court in action. Once there
is a criminal case then the court will have to proceed
with hearing the case guided by the rules on criminal
procedure. But it should be noted that before the
court proceeds to try the criminal case pending before
it, it is imperative that:
1. The court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter (offense).
2. The court must acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.
3. The court must also have jurisdiction over the
territory where the offense was committed.
Absent any of these requirements, then the court
cannot validly proceed to hear a criminal case filed
in the court.
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
Section 15(a) Rule 110 ROC
Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. - (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.
Again it was mentioned that the court may acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon his
arrest or when the accused voluntarily surrenders to
the court as when he appears during arraignment or
when he files a motion asking for an affirmative relief.
But then there is an added requirement that the court
must also have jurisdiction over the territory where the
offense was supposedly committed. In fact, if you’ve
read Section 15(a) of Rule 110 ROC, it provides that
the case must be tried by the court in whose territorial
jurisdiction the offense or any of its essential
elements/ingredients was supposedly committed.
Verily, when the offense was committed in Lapu-Lapu
City, then the case must be filed before the
appropriate court in Lapu-Lapu City be it the MTC or
RTC as the case may be. As a rule, such case may not
be filed with a court in Cebu City of Mandaue City.
Conversely, if the offense is committed in Barili, then
the case must be filed in MTC or RTC Barili and not
in the MTC/RTC of Bogo, because venue in criminal
cases is jurisdictional. Take note that in civil cases,
venue is highly waivable such that if the party fails to
object on the ground of venue, it’s okay, but not in
criminal cases. Because venue in criminal cases is
jurisdictional. If the offense was committed in Lapu-
Lapu City, and the case is filed and tried in Cebu City,
then the jurisdiction of the MTC/RTC in Cebu City
may be assailed of at any stage of the proceedings,
because, again, venue in criminal cases is
jurisdictional. And there is that requirement that the
offense must be committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court, because under the law, the
territorial jurisdiction of the courts have been defined
and apportioned by Congress.
However, just like any other rules, this admits of some
exceptions. In other words, while venue in criminal
cases is jurisdictional, there are situations where a
case may be filed even outside of the territory where
the offense was supposedly committed. Be guided by
the general rule that the case must be filed in the
proper court within whose territorial jurisdiction the
offense was committed. But that rule admits of some
exceptions.
EXCEPTIONS
5
One such exception is the provision under Section 2
of the Revised Penal Code, which provides in essence
that even crimes committed beyond the territorial
borders of the Philippines may be tried before the
Philippine Courts.
Article 2 Revised Penal Code
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding
number;
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations, defined
in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
What are those crimes which may be committed
elsewhere or outside the Philippines but may be tried
within our country?
1. Crimes committed on board a Philippine ship or
airship.
When we say Philippine ship or airship, it does
not have to be owned by Filipinos, in that it is
enough that it is registered under Philippines
laws. A ship or airship/aircraft may be owned by
a Canadian, but is registered under PH laws and
a crime is committed inside it, then the crime may
be tried here in the PH. Bisan pa didto na sa
Vietnam on flight, if it is registered in the PH, the
case may be prosecuted and tried before our
courts. And the court which first acquires
jurisdiction over the case will have exclusive
jurisdiction over the same to the exclusion of all
other courts. If the case is first filed in a Manila
RTC, that Manila RTC court will have jurisdiction
over the case to the exclusion of the Cebu courts.
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
2. Counterfeiting of Philippine coins or currency
or notes.
For example, nag-manufacture of Philippine
currencies didto sa Malaysia, then that
offense is punishable under PH laws and the
case may be filed not in Malaysia, but in the
PH. Other than that, if we introduce these
counterfeit coins and currency then that’s also
punishable under PH laws and the case may
be filed before any competent PH court.
3. Crimes committed by ambassadors or public
officers outside PH territory.
For example, you are an ambassador in the
US or Brazail (kay natintal ka sa ilang
samba), then you commit a heinous crime,
you cannot be prosecuted there if you are a
Philippine ambassador. The most that the
country could do is to deport you and declare
you persona non grata. But once you are
back in the PH, you can be prosecuted here
in the PH even if the offense was committed
in Brazil, because you are a public officer.
4. Crimes against national security and law of
nations.
What are these crimes against national
security? Treason, Conspiracy, Proposal to
commit Treason, Misprision of Treason,
Espionage, Violation of Neutrality, Inciting to
War, Correspondence with enemy country,
and Flight to enemy country. So if you commit
any of these crimes, even if the same was
committed outside the PH territory, then you
can be tried before the proper courts in the
PH.
What are the crimes against law of nations?
Piracy, Mutiny in the high seas, and Qualified
Piracy. (Unsa ni nga piracy? Kaning piracy sa
DVD? Dili ni mao nga piracy) Piracy refers to
piracy in the high seas – hijacking.
So you take note that the crimes mentioned in Article
2 of the RPC may be tried in the PH even if any of
these crimes are committed outside of our territory by
way of exception to the rule that venue is jurisdictional
in criminal cases.
Another exceptional circumstance where a case may
be tried outside of the place where it is supposedly
committed is when the Supreme Court would order a
change in the venue of the trial of criminal cases.
After all, under Section 5(4) Article VIII of the 1987
6
Constitution, one of the powers vested in the SC is the
power to change the venue of the hearing in criminal
cases.
Section 5(4) Article VIII 1987 Constitution
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
xxx
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to
avoid a miscarriage of justice.
Look what happened to the case of the so-called
Ampatuan massacre. It happened in Maguindanao,
but the trial of the case is being done in Manila. The
reason for that is that for the safety of the would-be
prosecution witnesses. The trial is supposedly in
Maguindanao, but the fact remains that as it is now,
the trial is being done in Manila. Look no further, look
what happened in the case in Bohol, the case of
kidnapping involving the mayor of Talibon, Bohol.
The kidnapping case was supposedly tried as the case
was filed in the RTC in Talibon having territorial
jurisdiction over Bohol, but the SC ordered a change
in the venue of the trial such that as it is now, the trial
is being done here in Cebu City, notwithstanding the
fact that venue is supposed to be jurisdictional in
criminal cases. It is in that case that Atty. Galeon
learned to his surprise that the SC can actually order
a change in the venue of the trial even without
notifying the accused in the criminal case.
Another exceptional circumstance where a case may
be filed other than the place where the crime is
supposedly committed is when the crime is committed
on board a train, aircraft, or a vehicle, be it a public
or private vehicle, when the crime is committed on the
course of its trip/journey. When that happens, and
applying the provision under Section 15(b) Rule 110
of the ROC, then the case may be filed in any court
of the municipality or territory where such train,
aircraft, or vehicle passed in the course of its trip.
Section 15(b) Rule 110 Rules of Court
Section 15. Place where action is to be institute
(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
court of any municipality or territory where such train,
aircraft or other vehicle passed during such its trip,
including the place of its departure and arrival.
For example: a public bus. Bogo to Cebu City. The
bus would pass through some municipalities:
Bogo - Sogod – Catmon – Carmen – Danao –
Liloan – Consolacion – Mandaue – Cebu
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
Let’s assume that in the course of its trip, there are 2
passengers quarrelling and fighting inside the bus,
and in the course of the fight, somebody got killed
kay gidunggab. Let’s assume that the actual stabbing
resulting in the death of the victim was done while the
bus was in Carmen. Where can you possibly file the
Information in court? Does it have to be filed in
Carmen only where the crime happened? No. Can
you file it in Carmen? Yes. Can you file it in Danao?
Yes. But crime was committed when the bus was still
in Carmen. Can you file in Catmon? Yes. The law
says that you can file in any placed passed during the
trip including the point of departure and destination.
So you can file it anywhere from Bogo to Cebu City.
You take note that following the general rule, the case
should have been filed only in Carmen, but this is one
of the recognized exceptional circumstances. In this
situation, you can choose where to file the action, as
long as it is within the trip/journey route including
departure and destination.
Let’s vary the situation. Let’s assume that the bus was
stationed in Bogo (nigarahe). The bus driver and
conductor were having a drinking spree resulting in
a quarrel, and the bus driver killed the bus conductor
in the process. In the hope of disposing of the body
of the bus conductor, nag-drive siya and iyang
gilabay sa Carmen ang body. Where can you file the
case? Bogo only. You cannot file it in any other place
because the crime was committed while the bus was
not on a trip, hence you cannot apply Section 15(b)
Rule 110.
Another recognized exception is the situation covered
under Section 15(c) Rule 110 of the ROC providing
that where the offense is committed on board a vessel
in the course of its voyage, the case may be filed
Section 15(c) Rule 110 Rules of Court
Section 15. Place where action is to be institute
(c) Where an offense is committed on board a
vessel in the course of its voyage, the criminal
action shall be instituted and tried in the court of
the first port of entry or of any municipality or
territory where the vessel passed during such
voyage, subject to the generally accepted principles
of international law.
at the appropriate court of the port of first entry or in
the alternative, it may be filed in the appropriate court
in the municipality or territory where the vessel passed
through. The previous exceptional circumstance is
land trip or air trip. This exception is barko (sea trip).
Cebu – Camotes - Bohol – Bato, Leyte
7
Port of departure is Cebu. Port of destination and
which is supposedly the port of first entry is the port
Bato, Leyte. But in the course of its voyage, the ship
would pass through Camotes (which is within the
territorial jurisdiction of the RTC in Danao) and Bohol.
In the course of its trip, a crime is committed inside
the vessel (homicide). Where can you possibly file the
case? Can you file it in the appropriate court of Bato,
Leyte even if the crime was committed while the vessel
in the waters of Camotes? Yes. Can you file it in
Camotes? Yes. Can you file it, because eventually
weighed anchored at the port of Bato, Leyte, in the
appropriate court of Bato, Leyte? Yes, because the
provision says that you can file it in the appropriate
court of the first port of entry. But can you file it in
Cebu? No.
So take note of the differences between Sections 15(b)
and 15(c) of Rule 110.
 Section 15(b) which is train, aircraft, and vehicle
– included ang point of departure.
 Section 15(c) which is the vessel – does not
include the point of departure. Destination is the
port of first entry.
Another exceptional situation where the case may be
filed outside of the place where the offense was
committed is in respect to cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.
Another exceptional circumstance where a case may
be tried outside of the place where it is supposedly
committed is in the event that the case is for libel or
written defamation. Because under Article 360 of the
Revised Penal Code, the offense may be filed before:
 The appropriate RTC of the place where the
libelous article was first published or printed;
 Or where the offended party is a public official,
at the place where the public official is holding
office;
 Or where the offended party is a private
individual, at the place where the offended party
resides.
All at the time when the libelous article was published.
For example, there’s an article in SunStar Daily Cebu.
Let’s assume that the libelous article was first printed
and published in Cebu City. The subject matter of the
libelous article is a public officer based in Maasin,
Southern Leyte. If our mayor would file a case of libel
against the publisher of SunStar Daily, can he file the
case in the RTC of Cebu City? Yes, because it is where
the published article was first printed and published.
But in the alternative, can he instead file the case
because the RTC of Maasin City? Yes, because Art.
360 RPC is very clear that if he is a public officer, he
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
can file it in the RTC of the place where the public
officer/offended party is holding office. So he can file
it either in Cebu City or Maasin City. If it happens tht
the offended party is a private person, then he can
also file the case before the RTC of the place where
he resides at the time of the publication of the libelous
written article. So if the offended party is a resident of
Timbukto (fictional), even when the article was first
printed and published here in Cebu, then the case
may be filed in Timbukto.
Note: When the libelous article pertains to his official
functions, the accused can file it in the place where
the libelous article was first printed and published OR
the place where he is holding office. When the
libelous article pertains to his private life, the accused
can file it in the place where the libelous article was
first printed and published OR the place where he
resides at the time of the commission of the libel.
You memorize by heart the exceptional circumstances
where the case may be filed and tried in the place
other than the place where the offense was
supposedly committed and notwithstanding the rule
that venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases.
JURISDICTION OF THE MTC AND RTC
Last time we mentioned that there are requirements
on criminal jurisdiction. Meaning to say that before a
case will proceed it is imperative as it is required that:
1. The court must have jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case, which is conferred by law
although it will be determined by the allegations
on the complaint/information.
2. The court must have jurisdiction over the person
of the accused.
3. The court must have jurisdiction over the territory.
We already discussed the manner by which the court
may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. Likewise we also discussed the rule on
venue, that it is jurisdictional subject to some
exceptions (see above). This session, we will discuss
the jurisdiction of the MTC and RTC when it comes to
handling of criminal cases.
JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
You take note that under BP 129, it is provided therein
that the cases cognizable by the MTC include cases
over offenses or violation of city and municipal
ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction. You take note that of course the
City Council of Cebu enacted some local ordinances
like Anti-Littering Ordinance. There is also this
ordinance prohibiting smoking in public places. So if
there is a violation of any of this local ordinances, the
8
case should be filed before the MTC, MTCC, or
Metropolitan Trial Court, not in the RTC.
Another criminal case which may be under the
jurisdiction of the MTC, MTCC, or Metropolitan Trial
Court is a case where the imposable penalty is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years. You take note
that what is to be considered is the penalty
IMPOSABLE or prescribed by law. What is to be
considered is NOT the penalty actually imposed after
trial. So if the law says that the imposable penalty for
the offense is imprisonment not exceeding 6 years
(i.e. 6 years below), then jurisdiction over that
criminal case is vested with the MTC, MTCC, or
Metropolitan Trial Court notwithstanding the fine that
may be imposed together with any such penalty of
imprisonment and notwithstanding the pecuniary
liability that may be imposed by the court. For
example, the case is for reckless imprudence resulting
to homicide. That’s a criminal case. But you take note
that the penalty for that offense is imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years. So the case for reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide should be filed with
the MTC, MTCC, or Metropolitan Trial Court
notwithstanding the fine that may be imposed in that
case and notwithstanding the pecuniary liability that
may be imposed. So inasmuch as the penalty
imposable for the offense of reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide is imprisonment not exceeding
6 years, even if the complainant or heirs of the victim
claimed damages amounting to P500,000 (which is
cognizable by the RTC), the case should remain with
the MTC. DO NOT factor in the pecuniary liability
that may be imposed. So even if the
complainant/heirs of the victim claimed for damages
amounting to P800,000, which is beyond the amount
of damages supposedly to be awarded by the MTC,
the case will be retained with the MTC. Because
normally actions for money claims where the penalty
or the amount involved is more than P300,000, the
case is to be tried with the RTC. But where the action
is a criminal case where the imposable penalty is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, then that is the
determining factor. Jurisdiction over that criminal
case is with the MTC regardless of the fine that may
be imposed in that case and regardless of the
pecuniary liability that may be awarded. So disregard
the prayer or damages. What is pivotal or
determinative is the imposable penalty, and not the
penalty actually imposed after reception of evidence.
So to make it short, where the imposable penalty of
the offense is imprisonment not exceeding 6 years,
then the case is with the MTC regardless of the fine
and regardless of the pecuniary liability.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE ON THE
JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
BUT take note that there are cases where even if the
penalty imposable is imprisonment not exceeding 6
years, jurisdiction over the same is vested with the
RTC or Sandiganbayan.
One such exceptional case is written libel under
Article 360 of the RPC because the law provides
otherwise. Article 360 provides very clearly that
jurisdiction over the case is vested with the RTC even
if the imposable penalty for the offense is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years.
Another case which should be filed not with the MTC,
but rather with the Sandiganbayan notwithstanding
the fact that the penalty imposable is imprisonment
not exceeding 6 years is a crime dealing with bribery.
Jurisdiction over this kind of offense is vested with the
Sandiganbayan, under PD 1606.
But generally, criminal cases where the imposable
penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 6 years must
be filed with the MTC, subject to the exceptions ( see
above).
WHEN THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE IS ONLY A FINE
It was mentioned that in a criminal case where the
imposable penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 6
years, then jurisdiction is vested with the MTC
regardless of the fine. BUT where the only imposable
penalty of the offense is a fine and no imprisonment,
and the amount of the fine is P4000 and below, then
jurisdiction over the case is vested with the MTC.
Conversely, where the only penalty for the offense is
fine, but the amount thereof exceeds P4000, then it
should be filed with the RTC. You disregard the fine
IF that is imposed together with an imprisonment of
not more than 6 years. But when the only imposable
penalty is a fine, you take note that MTC will have
jurisdiction over that case when the amount of the fine
as the only imposable penalty does not exceed
P4000. If it’s P4500 (or beyond P4000) already, then
it should be filed with the RTC.
So, imprisonment and fine, disregard the amount of
the fine and just factor in the imposable penalty of
imprisonment. If imprisonment is 6 years or below,
file before MTC even if the fine is beyond P4000. BUT
if fine only (no imprisonment), then file before MTC if
the penalty imposable is a fine not more than P4000;
otherwise file before RTC if fine is more than P4000.
CON’T TO THE GENERAL RULE ON MTC
JURISDICTION
Another case which is cognizable by the MTC, MTCC,
and Metropolitan Trial Court is criminal offenses for
reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property.
I would like to underscore the fact that where the
9
crime is reckless imprudence resulting to property,
then regardless of the amount of the damages
claimed by the private complaining witness,
jurisdiction over the case is vested with the MTC.
Disregard the amount of the claim or damages. Let’s
say for example, nabanggan ang sakyanan, so I filed
a case for reckless imprudence resulting to damage
to property. And I claimed that I should be paid
P500,000, when the amount within the competence
of MTC for plain damages is supposedly P300,000
(and less). In as much as the action is a criminal case
for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property, even if the amount that I claimed is
P500,000, the case should be filed before the MTC,
because the case is reckless imprudence resulting to
damage to property. But I would like to emphasize
that if the case that I’m going to file is a civil case
(simple case) for damages and NOT a criminal case,
if the amount of my claim is more the P300,000, then
the case should be filed with the RTC. So if
mabangaan ka (simbako), if the case that you filed is
a criminal case, then the value of the amount of the
damage to the property is immaterial, and
jurisdiction is with the MTC, even you are claiming for
damages with an amount beyond P300,000. But if
what you filed is a simple civil case, and you claim an
amount of more than P300,000, the jurisdiction over
that civil case is with the RTC.
Take note of the nuances:
 If criminal case for reckless imprudence
resulting to damage to property, then MTC
regardless of the amount of claim for
damages.
 If civil case for damages:
o If amount of the claim is P300,000 or
less, MTC.
o If amount of the claim if more than
P300,000, RTC.
Another case cognizable by the MTC, MTCC and
Metropolitan Trial Court is an criminal offense for
violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). This holds
true notwithstanding the amount of the check
involved. Even if the amount of the checked that
bounced is P1,000,000, jurisdiction still remains with
the MTC, MTCC, or Metropolitan Trial Court.
Disregard the face value of the check, because under
BP 129, jurisdiction over the case is vested with the
MTC. BUT if your action is just a civil case for
collection of sum of money and not a criminal case
for violation of BP 22 (kay naluoy ka), then be guided
by the jurisdiction amount: if the amount of the check
exceeds P300,000, then you file that with the RTC; if
the amount is P300,000 or below, file it with the MTC.
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
Of course it follows that where the MTC, MTCC or
Metropolitan Trial Court will have jurisdiction over
offenses where the penalty imposable is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, cases falling
under the rules of Summary Procedure will also be
cognizable by MTC, MTCC, and Metropolitan Trial
Court. Examples of this are violation of traffic rules,
jaywalking, or where the penalty imposable is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not
exceeding P1000 or both, or reckless imprudence
resulting to damage to property where the amount of
the fine is an amount not exceeding P10,000. These
crimes must be filed under the MTC. Cases falling
under the rules of summary procedure must be filed
with the MTC.
So inyong bantayan is ang kaso about libel and
bribery, because even if the penalty imposable
thereon is imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, the
law prescribes that it should be filed with the RTC or
Sandiganbayan as the case may be.
JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
Under BP 129, all criminal cases not subject to the
jurisdiction of any other court except those cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan will have to be
filed before and tried by the Regional Trial Court. In
other words, cases beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC
and not falling under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan must be filed with the RTC. So if
earlier we learned that criminal cases where the
imposable penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 6
years, it follows that where the imposable penalty is
imprisonment exceeding 6 years (i.e. 6 years 1 day
and up), then it follows clearly that the criminal case
must be filed with the RTC, because the case does not
fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC and as long as
the case is not cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
It is also provided under BP 129 that RTC would have
appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases decided by
the MTC, MTCC, and Metropolitan Trial Court as the
case may be. For example, the criminal case is
cognizable such that the same is tried before the
MTC, and after the trial the MTC judge renders a
judgment of conviction. Accused then interposed an
appeal. If an accused will interpose an appeal from
a judgment of conviction because the prosecution
cannot file an appeal in the event of an acquittal, then
jurisdiction over that appealed criminal case is vested
with the RTC, even if the penalty imposable for the
offense and even if what was imposed on the accused
is imprisonment not exceeding 6 years. Because that
is already an appealed case. So for example, even if
the case is for reckless imprudence resulting to slight
physical injuries and hence filed with and decided by
the MTC, if there is an appeal thereon, if at all such
10
appeal can be countenanced as the same is
interposed by the accused, then the RTC will have
jurisdiction over the case. What matters is that it was
already disposed of by the MTC regardless of what
was the imposable penalty and regardless of what
was actually imposed on the accused, because that is
already an appealed case.
It is likewise provided under BP 129 that RTC also will
have jurisdiction over criminal cases which may be
designated to it by no less than the Supreme Court.
Take note that in our jurisdiction, there are cases
which the SC designated to be tried only by the RTC.
One such type of case is when the case involves a
minor child – below 18. So for example, even if the
offense is punishable only by a penalty of
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, but where the
offender or accused is a minor, then the case will
have to be tried by the RTC, not the MTC. Or when
the victim is a minor, even if the imposable penalty is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, it has to be tried
by the RTC because the SC already issued a circular
designating RTCs to hear and try criminal cases
involving minor offenders or minor victims. In fact,
any such case must be raffled to and should be heard
by an RTC designated as the family court. There are
courts which are designated as family courts. Any
case involving a minor, be it the offender or offended
party, must be heard only by the RTC designated as
a family court. It happened to one of our cases, the
kidnapping case. It was transferred from Talibon,
Bohol to RTC Cebu. Arraignment happened before a
regular RTC. Eventually, it was transferred to another
RTC (RTC 22) which was designated as a family court,
because it was found out later that there was a minor
because one of the complaining parties was a minor.
Prosecution applied for the discharge of 2 of the
accused to be utilized as state witnesses. We objected
holding that it could no longer be done without a
formal hearing because there was already an
arraignment. But the prosecution was sustained,
because it was determined that the arraignment that
was had before by a regular RTC was unprocedural,
because the case should have been raffled off to a
family court which is RTC 22. But in another case we
were sustained because there was already a valid
arraignment. In the kidnapping case, while there was
an arraignment, it was an invalid one, because it was
conducted by a regular RTC which has no jurisdiction
over the case because the same should have been
raffled to a family court as the case involved a minor.
So again, cases which involve a minor (offender or
offended party) must be tried before a family court
(RTC) notwithstanding the penalty imposable. But
take note that there is already a circular to the end
that even when the victim in a criminal case is a minor
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
and that the case should be tried by an RTC
designated as a family court, if the minor victim
already died or as a result of the crime the minor
victim died, the case can already be raffled to a
regular RTC. RTC but no longer a family court, IF the
minor victim already died. Take note:
 General rule – where the criminal offense
involves a minor (offender or offended party),
case should be raffled to an RTC designated
as a family court.
 Exception – when the minor victim already
died, the case may be raffled to a regular
RTC.
Cases for violation of RA 9262 (VAWC). There are
offenses therein in which the prescribed or imposable
penalty is only aresto mayor or menor. Clearly, it falls
under the jurisdiction of the MTC, but you take note
that under the law, violations of RA 9262 must be
filed with and tried by the RTC designated as family
courts, regardless of the imposable penalty or
imprisonment.
There are also cases in which the law itself provides
that the case should be prosecuted before the RTC,
regardless of the imposable penalty.
o One such case is libel or written defamation
under Article 360 of the RPC. Even if the
imposable penalty therefore is imprisonment
not exceeding 6 years, but the law provides
that it should be tried with the RTC.
o Another case which should be tried by the RTC
regardless of the penalty imposed because
this is what is provided by law is violation of
RA 9165 or Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
regardless of the imposable penalty.
o Also, violations of the Intellectual Property
Code or RA 8293 must be filed with and tried
by the RTC, because that is what the law
provides regardless of the imposable penalty.
o Also, violations also of the Anti-Money
laundering Act or RA 9160 must be filed with
the RTC, because that is what the law
provides.
o Violation of Subdivision and Condominium
Buyers Protective Decree or PD 957 must be
filed with and tried by the RTC regardless of
the imposable penalty, because that is what
the law provides.
11
JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
Today we will discuss the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan as defined under PD 1606, as
amended by PD 7975, and lately by RA 8249.
Section 4(a) of PD 1606 as amended
Section 4 PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249
"a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No.
1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book
II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or
more of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government whether
in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at
the time of the commission of the offense:
"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying
the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of
the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically including:
"(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan
and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers
and other provincial department heads;
"(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers,
assessors engineers and other city department
heads;
"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying
the position of consul and higher;
"(d) Philippine army and air force colonels,
naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
"(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police
while occupying the position of provincial
director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent or higher;
"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
"(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or -controlled
corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations;
"(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade'27'and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989;
"(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice
to the provisions of the Constitution;
"(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
"(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 orfelonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes 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, issued in 1986.
Among the offenses that may be taken cognizance of
by the Sandiganbayan are the offenses mentioned
under Section 4(a) of PD 1606 as amended such as
violation of:
o RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act);
o RA 1379 (Law on Ill-Gotten Wealth, or an act
declaring forfeiture in favor of the State
properties found to be illegally acquired by
public/government officials);
o Offenses defined under Chapter II Section II
Title VII of the RPC (direct bribery, indirect
bribery, corruption of public officers, qualified
bribery).
You take note that these crimes may be cognizable
by the Sandganbayan where 1 or more of the
accused are officers occupying the positions
enumerated under Section 4(a) of PD 1606 as
amended, which are:
o Positions in the Executive Department
occupying the position of Regional Director or
higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 of
the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 or RA 6758, including:
 Provincial governors, vice governors,
members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other
provincial departments
officers/heads.
 City mayors, vice mayors, members of
the Sangguniang Panglungsod, the
city treasurers, assessors, engineers,
and other city department
officers/heads.
12
 Officials in the diplomatic service,
occupying the position of consul and
higher.
 Officers of the Philippine Army and
the Armed Forces with the position of
colonel and naval captains, and all
other officers higher in rank.
 Officers of the Philippine National
Police occupying the position of the
provincial director and those holding
the rank of senior superintendent or
higher.
 City and provincial prosecutors and
their assistants, the officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor.
 President, trustees, directors, and
managers of government-owned or –
controlled corporations.
o Members of Congress and officials thereof
with a Salary Grade of 27.
o Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to
the provisions in the Constitution,
o Members of the various constitutional
commissions such as the Civil Service
Commission, Commission on Audit, and
Commission on Elections, and the members
thereof.
o All national and local officials classified as
Grade 27 or higher under the Compensation
and Position Classification Act.
I would like to underscore the fact that for specific
crimes enumerated above, to be cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, need to be committed by any of the
officers listed down. You should take note that when
there are two or more accused, it is enough that one
of them holds a position that is included in the above
enumeration. You take note that in the case of Lacson
v. Sandiganbayan, our SC, applying the provision of
RA 8249, declared that it is no longer required that
these officers enumerated above must be implicated
as principals. Even if the enumerated public officers
are impleaded as accessories, then it is enough to
vest the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over the offense,
provided that the offense is one of those mentioned
under Section 4(a). So if any of these offenses are
committed by any of the officers listed under Section
4(a), then Sandiganbayan would have jurisdiction
over the offense.
You will take note that in the enumeration, there are
only 3 groupings in which the law requires that the
accused must be having the position with Salary
Grade 27 or higher:
o Section 4(a)(1)
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ

o Section 4(a)(2) cognizable by the Sandiganbayan? You take note

o Section 4(a)(5) that there is another paragraph in Section 4 which
says that in cases where none of the accused are
In other words, as for the public officers listed under
occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade
Section 4(a)(1)(a – g), they need not be holding the
27 or higher as prescribed in RA 6758, or military or
position with Salary Grade 27. That explains why in
PNP officers mentioned above, then exclusive original
the case of Serana, Serana’s case was still decided by
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper RTC,
the Sandiganbayan even if Serana, the student regent
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
of UP, was not holding a position of a Salary Grade
MCTC as may be governed by BP 129.
27, because Serana’s case falls under Section
4(a)(1)(g), which is presidents, directors, trustees, or See illustration on notebook for discussion below.
managers of GOCCs including state universities or
So if the offense, for example, is violation of RA 3019,
educational institutions. Besides, I don’t think that
but the offender is a municipal mayor, then the
provincial treasurers, assessors, and engineers are
offense is to be tried NOT by the Sandiganbayan, but
holding a position of Salary Grade 27. So indeed,
by the MTC or RTC as the case maybe depending on
these public officials in sub-paragraphs (a – g) need
the imposable penalty. But where the offender is a
not have a position of at least Salary Grade 27,
city mayor which is included in the enumeration
because only paragraphs (1), (2), and (5) of Section
under Section 4(a)(1 – 5), then the offense would be
4(a) needs to have a position of Salary Grade 27.
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. That’s why it was
When offenses under Section 4(a) are cognizable by mentioned that for Sandiganbayan to take
lower courts cognizance of the case, it is imperative that the
offense be included under the enumeration of Section
We mentioned earlier that for these offenses or for
(4)(a) and that the offender must be included in the
any one of them to be cognizable by the
enumeration under Section 4(a)(1 – 5).
Sandiganbayan, it is important and imperative that
the accused or alleged offenders must be holding the Section 4(b) of PD 1606 as amended
positions falling under this enumeration. Such that
Let us vary the situation. Let us assume that the
even if the offense is included in the enumeration of
offender holds a position which is included in the
offenses under Section 4(a) of PD 1606, say violation
enumeration under Section 4(a)(1 – 5), but the
of RA 3019, but the offender thereof does not hold a
offense that is supposedly committed is not included
position under the enumeration under Section 4(a),
in the numeration of the crimes under Section 4(a).
then the Sandiganbayan would have no jurisdiction
This is the reverse from the previous situation. In the
over the offense. For example, a case is filed for
previous situation, the crime is included in Section
violation of RA 3019 but the accused is a barangay
4(a) but the position of the offender is not included in
treasurer or municipal mayor. Take note that in the
the enumeration under Section 4(a)(1 – 5). This time
enumeration of positions in Section 4(a), municipal
around, the offense is no longer included in Section
mayor is not included therein, such that if in a case
4(a), but the position of the offender is included in the
the accused for the crime of violation of RA 3019 is a
enumeration under Section 4(a)(1 – 5). For example,
municipal mayor, then Sandiganbayan would have
the offense is malversation of public funds. However,
no jurisdiction of the offense. But still the crime is
the offender is a city mayor (included in Section 4(a)(1
punishable. Question, if that case will not be
– 5)). Which court will have jurisdiction over the
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, who has
offense? Sandiganbayan. Basis is Section 4(b), which
jurisdiction over the case? RTC. What is your basis in
provides that the case may be taken cognizance of
saying that if the offense is say violation of RA 3019
the Sandiganbayan if it be for other offenses whether
but the position of the offender is a municipal mayor
simple or complexed with other crimes committed by
which is not included in the enumeration under
public officials and employees mentioned under
Section 4(a), the offense would be cognizable by
Section 4(a)(1 – 5) in relation to their office. That
lower courts? It cannot be based under Section 4(b),
explains why in the case of Subido, the charge
because if you look at paragraph (b), it mentions of
against Subido was Arbitrary Detention/Kidnapping.
“other offenses”. Paragraph (b) also mentions that
Kidnapping is not mentioned under Section 4(a), but
the offender must be among those public officers
considering that Subido holds the position of a
mentioned under Section 4(a), hence it cannot be
Regional Director which is included in the
justified under paragraph (b). So what is your basis
enumeration under Section 4(a)(1 – 5) and
in saying that even if the offense is say violation of RA
considering that he allegedly committed the offense
3019 (Section 4(a)) but the offender is not holding a
in relation to his office, then Sandiganbayan had
position mentioned in Section(4)(a), the offense is not
jurisdiction over the case. Another case in point is
13
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan. Pactolin was a member
of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis
Oriental. The charge against him was falsification of
public documents. Take note that falsification of
public documents is not one of the crimes covered
under Section 4(a). But in this case, the SC said that
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction because Pactolin is
occupying a position mentioned in Section 4(a)(1 –
5). That’s also the case of Serana. The case leveled
against Serana before the Sandiganbayan was
malversation of public funds, but what was filed was
estafa. Yet Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction, because
the position that she held is covered in the
enumeration under Section 4(a)(1 – 5), since she was
holding the position of that of a trustee of a state
university. Hence Sandiganbayan would have
jurisdiction over these other offenses for as long as
the same is committed by the officials and employees
mentioned under Section 4(a)(1 – 5) and for as long
as the same is committed in relation to their office.
Such that if the charge is for another offense not
mentioned or covered under Section 4(a) and the
offender is not also among those mentioned udner
Section 4(a)(1 – 5), then Sandiganbayan is without
jurisdiction over the case. Verily, if the crime is say for
malversation of public funds, but the offender is a
municipal mayor, then Sandiganbayan would be
without jurisdiction over the case. The case would be
cognizable by the MTC or RTC as the case may be
depending on the imposable penalty because
paragraph (b) requires that this other offense/s be
committed by public officers mentioned under
Section(4)(a)(1 – 5) and that the offense be committed
in relation to the performance of one’s public office.
But what if the charge is for another offense, say
murder, so it’s ostensibly covered under Section 4(b),
but the offender holds a position mentioned un
Section 4(a)(1 – 5), say for example a city mayor. But
the offense is supposedly not committed in relation to
his public duties. Question: which court has
jurisdiction over the case? RTC, because for Section
4(b) to apply, it is imperative that the other offense/s
be committed in relation to one’s office and
committed by persons enumerated under Section
4(a)(1 – 5). So where this happens, the case will be
tried before the RTC. This is the case of Sanchez v.
Demetrious. Because in that case, the rape with
homicide was committed by Sanchez not in relation
to his public office as mayor of Calauan, Laguna.
APPELATE JURISIDCTION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN
Situation 1: Crime is in Section 4(a) but position is
not in Section 4(a)(1 – 5)
14
Let’s complicate the situation further. We mentioned
that where the violation false under the cases
mentioned under Section 4(a), say violation of RA
3019, and the offender is a municipal mayor, then
Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction of the case
because municipal mayor is not included in the
positions enumerated therein. We mentioned that the
case should be cognizable by the MTC or RTC as the
case may be. Assume further that after trial, accused
mayor is convicted of the offense, for violation of RA
3019, and assume that the case is tried by the MTC.
But the accused municipal mayor interposed an
appeal. So when would this municipal mayor file his
notice of appeal and to what court should the appeal
be forwarded? In that situation, appeal shall be taken
to the RTC, and assuming that there is a conviction,
if the mayor wants to interpose an appeal, where
should the appeal be filed? Should it be filed with the
CA or Sandiganbayan, knowing full well that after
RTC, we have the CA? Take note that the case
originated with the MTC, there was judgment of
conviction, but the accused interposed an appeal in
the RTC, and RTC affirmed the judgment of
conviction. Undaunted, the accused wants to
interpose an appeal. The appeal must be filed before
the Sandiganbayan. The basis for that is another
provision/paragraph in Section 4 of PD 1606 as
amended by RA 8249:
Section 4 PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249
xxx
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders or regional trial courts
whether in the exercise of their own original
jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided.
xxx
That is why in the previous illustration, if there is a
judgment of conviction, and accused interposed an
appeal before the RTC, and if there any further
appeal, it should be filed before the Sandiganbayan
and not the CA.But after the Sandiganbayan, where
would the appeal go? It should go to the Supreme
Court.
Situation 2: Crime is in Section 4(a), and position is
in Section 4(a)(1 – 5) [falls under Section 4(a)]
But let’s go back to the previous problem. The crime
is for violation of RA 3019. The offender this time is
a city mayor, which is included in Section 4(a)(1 – 5).
We mentioned that the case should be tried by the
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
Sandiganbayan. In the event of conviction, where
should the appeal be filed? Sandiganbayan.
Situation 3: Crime is not in Section 4(a), but position
is in Section 4(a)(1 – 5) [falls under Section 4(b)]
Then let’s go to the other previous situation. The
crime is for malversation of public funds, and the
offender is a city mayor (included in Section 4(a)(1 –
5)). The case should be tried by the Sandiganbayan.
Take note that malversation falls under Section 4(b)
because this offense is not mentioned in Section 4(a).
So in the event of conviction, where should the
accused file his appeal? Supreme Court.
Situation 4: Crime is not in Section 4(a), and position
is not in Section (4)(a)(1 – 5)
Let’s vary the situation. The offense is malversation
of public funds. The offender is a municipal mayor.
The situation is not covered by Section 4(b) because
the offender does not hold a position under Section
4(a)(1 – 5). The case would have to be tried by the
MTC or RTC as the case may be. In the event of
conviction by the MTC, then appeal would go to the
RTC. But in the event of conviction in RTC, where
should the case go? Sandiganbayan. In the event of
conviction and where there is further appeal, you go
to the Supreme Court.
Situation 5: Crime is not in Section 4(a), and position
is in Section 4(a)(1 – 5), but offense is committed not
in relation to public office
So let’s go to the last situation, where the charge is
for murder, definitely not in Section 4(a), but the
offender is a city mayor, whose position is in Section
(4)(a)(1 – 5). But this time, the offense is committed
not in relation to public office. The case should be
tried by the RTC. In the event of conviction, and an
appeal is interposed, where should the case go? Take
note that the offender is a city mayor whose position
is included in Section 4(a)(1 – 5). You go to the Court
of Appeals, because it is as if this offense is committed
not by virtue of his office or position that he held, but
in his private capacity. So in the event of conviction
and he wants to interpose an appeal, he should to to
the CA.
“IN RELATION TO ONE’S PUBLIC OFFICE”
It is mentioned in Section 4 that the Sandiganbayan
would have jurisdiction over other offenses or
felonies, whether simple or complexed with other
crimes, committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in Section 4(a)(1 – 5), but for
Section 4(b) to apply, it is stated therein that such
other offense/s must be committed in relation to
one’s public office or functions. But how would we
15
know if the offense is supposedly committed in
relation to one’s public function or position? Take
note that this is pivotal for the offense to be committed
in relation to one’s office, other than the requirement
that he must be holding a position mentioned in
Section 4(a)(1-5). How would we know? Check the
allegations in the Information. To determine whether
or not the other offense is committed by the public
officer in relation to his office, we need to consider
the allegations/averments in the Information. Take
note that if the other offense leveled against the
public officer has as its constituent element the public
position that one is holding, then there is no need for
the Information to contain the elaborate allegation
tending to establish the intimacy between the public
office and the offense supposedly committed. But that
holds true only if the other offense has as its
constituent element the public position held by the
accused. For example, if the offense is for
malversation of public funds. Take note that
malversation of public funds is one of the crimes
included in Title VII of the RPC or offenses committed
by public officers. So when we speak of malversation
of public funds, it necessarily carries with it that the
offender thereof must be a public officer. So if that is
the other offense mentioned in the criminal
Information, there is no need for the Information to
contain that elaborate allegation/assertion tending to
establish the intimacy between the public office and
offense supposedly committed, the reason being that
public office is already an integral component or
element of the offense of malversation of public
funds. So it’s enough to say in the Information that
the offense is supposedly committed with abuse of
public office or in relation one’s public office. If you
look at the allegation in the case of Serana, it was
merely stated that she supposedly committed the
offense in relation to her public office. In the case of
Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan , it was mentioned that the
offense was committed with abuse of public office.
But where the other offense is totally alien or foreign
to one’s public office or function, or that this other
offense does not have as its constituent element a
public position, then it is imperative that the
Information must convey an elaborate
averment/allegation tending to establish the intimacy
between the public position and the offense
supposedly committed by the public officer. Like in
the case of Sanchez v. Demetriou, rape with
homicide. That is why in the case of Esteban v.
Sandiganbayan, take note that the criminal
Information against Judge Esteban had been
amended several times, because there was an
attempt to establish the link or intimate connection
between the offense of acts of lasciviousness which is
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
totally alien to the position held by Judge Esteban with
the offense, so as to confer Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction over the offense. Because without that
intimate connection, the case would have been
cognizable by the regular courts (MTC or RTC). That’s
also in the case of Lacson. Take note that the case
leveled against Lacson was murder. It does not follow
that if you hold public office then you would commit
murder. Public position is also not an integral element
of murder. It was observed in that case that in the
Information, there was but a casual averment that the
offense of murder was supposedly committed by the
accused in relation to his office. The SC said that that
allegation does not comply with the requirements set
forth in the case of People v. Montejo. If you will
observe, in the case of Montejo, the allegation in the
Information was elaborate, because it was
established therein that indeed the offense of murder
was committed in relation to the public office of the
mayor, without which then the case would have been
cognizable by the regular courts. But in the case of
Montejo, it was decided before the Sandiganbayan
was created. Had Sandiganbayan been created
during that time, the case would have been tried by
the SB, because the Information against Montejo
made mention of the intimate connection between
the offense charged and public position held by the
accused. That was the pitfall in the case of Lacson
because it was merely averred that the offense of
murder was committed in relation to the public office,
and that’s not enough. There has to be an allegation
establishing the intimate connection between the
public position of the accused and the offense which
was allegedly committed. Again, this elaborate
averment is only required where the charge is for
other offense/s not enumerated under Section 4(a)
and the offender holds a position mentioned in
Section 4(a)(1 – 5), and the offense is totally aliento
the public position held by the accused.
Another offense which should be filed before the
Sandiganbayan are cases civil and criminal filed in
connection to EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-A. They have
something to do with sequestration of properties
illegally acquired by Marcos, his family, his cronies,
and friends. So take note that even civil cases filed in
connection therewith must be tried before the
Sandiganbayan. It’s not to be filed with the regular
courts (MTC or RTC). You take note also that in civil
and criminal cases filed in connection with the illegal
wealth accumulated by Marcos, his relatives, cronies
and friends, may be tried and heard by the
Sandiganbayan even if the defendants therein are
private persons. They do not need to hold public
positions. So notwithstanding the fact that the
accused in cases in relation to EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-
16
A are not holding public position, they will still be tried
before the Sandigabayan.
Take note further that even in a case where there are
private persons implicated therein as co-conspirators
with public officers mentioned in Section 4(a)(1 – 5),
then the case would still have to be tried by the
Sandiganbayan. It does not matter if there are private
persons who are implicated therein. This is governed
by the following provision:
Section 4 of PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249
In case private individuals are charged as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories with the
public officers or employees, including those
employed in govemment-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.
Also, in the event of conviction, you follow the flow
that was discussed/presented earlier, bisan pa og
naay private persons involved. So if the case is
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, even if there
private persons implicated therein as accused, then
you go to the SC. If the case is tried by the RTC, then
you go to the CA, and notwithstanding that there are
accused who are not public officers, you go to the
Sandiganbayan, because what matters most is that
the case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION ETC.
You take note also that in connection with the appeal
filed before the Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan
is vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over
petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunction, and other ancillary writs in
connection therewith or in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction. It also has jurisdiction over quo warranto
proceedings arising from cases filed under EO 1, 2,
14, and 14-A. So the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan when it comes to hearing cases of
appeal is not just limited in resolving the cases on
appeal, in that it can also issue ancillary writs like
mandamus and prohibition. If you are the accused
therein, and the judgment rendered by the RTC
involves confiscation of your illegally acquired
properties, then you can apply for an injunctive relief
seeking for enjoinment of the decision pending
appeal. You can apply for the writ before the
Sandiganbayan.
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
Section 4 of PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the
writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature,
including quo warranto, arising or that may arise
in cases filed or which may be filed under
Executive Order Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in
1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme
Court
Take note further that under Section 4 of PD 1606 as
amended, it is provided that the civil aspect of the
criminal case under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan would have to be tried jointly with the
criminal case. In fact, reservation of the institution of
the civil case is NOT allowed. Normally in other
criminal cases, you can file a civil case, such as in
estafa. But not for cases falling within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. In fact if the civil case is filed
before the institution of the criminal case, then that
civil case may be suspended and it may be
transferred and tried jointly with the criminal offense
before the Sandiganbayan. You cannot separate the
civil aspect of the criminal cases falling under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Section 4 of PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249
Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the
contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the
corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil
liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted
with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding
by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the
filing of the criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action,
and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action
separately from the criminal action shall be
recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil
action had therefore been filed separately but
judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the
criminal case is hereafter filed with the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil
action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or
the appropriate court, as the case may be, for
consolidation and joint determination with the
criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action
shall be deemed abandoned
17
OTHER CASES FALLING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF SANDIGANBAYAN IN SPECIAL LAWS
Take note further that other than the cases mentioned
under Section 4(a), (b), and (c), there are also other
cases which by provisions of law will have to be tried
by the Sandigabayan, such as violation of Anti-
Money Laundering act committed by public officers
and private persons who are in conspiracy with such
public officers. You take note that PD 1606 as
amended does not mention the case of Anti-Money
Laundering Act as falling under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, but by express provision of RA 9160,
any case of violation of such law must be tried before
the Sandiganbayan. Also, although PD 1606 does
not mention of violation of the Plunder Law, by
provision of RA 7080, violation of such law will have
to be tried by the Sandiganbayan. Take note that
these offenses are not enumerated under Section
4(a), (b), or (c), but by the very conditions of RA 7080
and RA 9160, these offenses will have to be tried
before the Sandiganbayan.
APPEAL (REMEDIES)
Recap
Previously, we discussed the provisions defining the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan vis-à-vis the RTC
and MTC. You can recall that when we discussed
Section 4(a), we learned that there are offenses that
are specified therein (RA 3019, RA 1379, Chapter 2
Section 2 Title VII of the RPC). We also learned that it
is imperative that the offenses enumerated therein be
committed by the public officials or employees
covered in the enumeration under Section 4(a)(1 – 5)
so that the case would have to be tried by the
Sandiganbayan. So it’s not enough that an offense is
committed for violation of RA 3019 and that the
offender is a public official, because even if he is a
public official but he is not included in the
enumeration, then the case may be taken cognizance
by the lower courts.
To refresh out memory, if the offense is violation of
RA 3019 (under Section 4(a)), and the offender is a
city mayor (under Section 4(a)(1 – 5)), the case will be
tried by the Sandiganbayan, then if there’s an
appeal, go to the Supreme Court.
If the offense is violation of RA 3019 (under Section
4(a)), but the offender is a barangay captain (not
under Section 4(a)(1 -5)), case will be tried by the
MTC or RTC. If there’s an appeal, go to
Sandiganbayan, then SC.
If other offenses such as malversation (not under
Section 4(a)), offender is city mayor (under Section
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ
4(a)(1 – 5)), case is under Sandiganbayan. Appeal to
the SC.
If malversation (not under Section 4(a)), offender is
barangay captain (not under Section 4(a)(1 – 5), MTC
or RTC, then Sandiganbayan, then SC.
If other offenses where public office is not a
constituent element, such as murder (not in Section
4(a)), offender is city mayor (under Section 4(a)(1 –
5)), then committed in relation to public office, case
will be under Sandiganbayan. Then to the SC.
But if offense is murder (not in Section 4(a)), offender
is city mayor (under Section 4(a)(1 – 5)), but not in
relation to public office, case will be tried by the CA.
Then to SC.
So as you can see, if the case is tried by the
Sandiganbayan, recourse will be had to the Supreme
Court. Whereas if the case is tried by the MTC or RTC
because the offender is not included in the
enumeration under Section 4(a)(1 – 5) even if the
offense is included in Section 4(a), then the case will
have to be filed by the MTC or RTC, then in the event
of an appeal, you can go to the Sandiganbayan then
to the SC. That explains why in the case of Lacson,
Lacson really asserted that the case be tried in the
RTC, because the beauty or advantage if the case is
tried in the RTC is that he has what is known as the
“two-tierred remedy”. Because if the case is tried by
the RTC, in the event of conviction, you can go to the
Sandiganbayan, and if you still fail you can go to the
Supreme Court. Whereas if the case is tried by the
Sandiganbaya, you only have one recourse which is
the SC, so you only have 1 chance in getting a
favorable judgment or reversal. But if the case is tried
by the RTC, you have 2 opportunities in securing a
reversal of the judgment of conviction. That’s why in
Lacson, Lacson really asserted that the case should
have been tried by the RTC. But the SC ruled that the
case supposedly would fall under the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan, because RA 8249 is applicable
to the case of Lacson because although he was not
holding a position or not one of the accused held a
position with Salary Grade 27, but under the
amendatory law RA 8249, it’s enough that one of the
officers enumerated under Section 4(a)(1 – 5) is
included in the charge. It does not matter what his
complicity to the offense is – he may be a principal,
accomplice, or accessory. What matters most is that
he is charged as an accused therein. But luckily for
Lacson, it’s because of the defect in the Information
because there was no showing in the Information
showing the intimacy between the position that he
held and his other co-accused and the offense of
murder, the SC said that the case should be tried by
the RTC, so Lacson had the two-tiered appeal.
18
But whether the case is to be tried by the MTC or RTC
as the case may be, or Sandiganbayan ultimately, it
will reach the SC.
Appeal/Remedy Proper
But the question is: what is your remedy in pursuing
the case before the SC? What mode of appeal will
you pursue? Take note that in Section 4, there is no
statement there as to what remedy you should
pursue.
Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
Situation 1: Sandiganbayan – Supreme Court
If the case is originally tried by the Sandiganbayan,
and an appeal is to be pursued before the SC, all you
have to do is to file a Notice of Appeal. That is under
the Rules of Procedures of the Sandiganbayan. But
where the penalty imposed is death (assuming that
death penalty is reimposed), then there is no need to
file a Notice of Appeal, because there will be an
automatic review.
Situation 2: RTC – Sandiganbayan – Supreme Court
How about cases where the offense is for violation of
RA 3019 (under Section 4(a)) but the offender is a
barangay captain (not under Section 4(a)(1 – 5)).
Let’s assume that the case is tried originally with the
RTC. We mentioned that the decision of the RTC
would have to be appealed to the Sandiganbayan
before the SC. If the case is originally tried by the RTC,
and appeal is to be pursued before the
Sandiganbayan, what will be the remedy? It should
still be a Notice of Appeal. In fact, as mentioned in
the rules of procedure of the Sandiganbayan, you
may apply the civil procedure on Rule 41 and Rule
44, and also by analogy Rule 122 or Rule 124 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. But where the
penalty imposed is death (assuming that death
penalty is reimposed), then there is no need to file a
Notice of Appeal, because there will be an automatic
review.
But if for example, the decision of the RTC rendered
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is appealed
through the filing of the notice of appeal to the
Sandiganbayan, and the Sandiganbayan affirms the
ruling of the RTC but the accused would want to take
his chances in the SC, what will the accused pursue?
The accused must file a Petition for Review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.
Situation 3: MTC – RTC – Sandiganbayan – SC
Violation is RA 3019 (under Section 4(a)), offender is
a barangay captain (not under Section 4(a)(1 – 5)),
but the penalty imposable is cognizable by the MTC,
 CRIMPRO | ATTY. GALEON | EH406 | S.Y. 2019 – 2020 | K.Y.ENRIQUEZ

so the case is originally tried in the MTC. Recourse Note:

may be had to the RTC, then to the Sandiganbayan,
then finally to the SC. From MTC’s decision, you
should file a Notice of Appeal.
Assume further that on appeal to the RTC, the
decision of MTC is affirmed in toto and accused
would want to go to the Sandiganbayan. What should
the remedy be? It is Petition for Review under Rule 42.
The difference here is that the RTC decided the case
in its appellate jurisdiction (unlike in the previous
RTC-Sandiganbayan scenario wherein the RTC
decided the case in its original jurisdiction), because
the case originally was tried by the MTC. So from
MTC to RTC, a mere Notice of Appeal would suffice.
But to review the decision of the RTC in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction, and you want to have
recourse before the Sandiganbayan, then you file a
Petition for Review under Rule 42.
And if you want to review the decision of the
Sandiganbayan to the SC, then you file a Petition for
Review under Rule 45.
If you say Notice of Appeal, it should be filed before
the court which rendered the assailed decision.
If Petition for Review, it should be filed before the
higher court or the court who will review the decision.
Certiorari under Rule 65 applies only to interlocutory
orders. It is not a remedy for a lost appeal. An
example of an interlocutory order is when the case is
on trial and you believe the judge committed grave
abuse of discretion, then you can go to the
Sandiganbayan via a certiorari under Rule 65, not a
Notice of Appeal because there is not decision yet.
For instance you tried to offer evidence, but it was
denied and you think there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the judge, there is no
decision yet, so you can go to the Sandiganbayan
under Rule 65. This is what you call an ‘extraordinary
remedy’.

Cases cognizable by the MTC or RTC

Situation 1: MTC – RTC – CA – SC (penalty is

imprisonment 6 years and below)
If the case originated from the MTC, and appeal is
taken from the judgment of MTC, the case will be
forwarded to the RTC. What remedy will you pursue?
It is Notice of Appeal.

Supposing that RTC in the exercise of its appellate

jurisdiction affirms the judgment of conviction of the
MTC and accused would want to try his luck in the
CA. What is the remedy that accused should pursue?
Petition for Review under Rule 42.

From CA to SC, it is Petition for Review under Rule 45.

Situation 2: RTC – CA – SC (penalty is more than 6

years)
From (originally) RTC to CA, Notice of Appeal. But
what is imposed is death penalty (assuming that
death penalty will be imposed), then there is no need
for Notice of Appeal since there will be an automatic
review and pursuant to the case of People v. Mateo.

The from the decision of the CA to the SC, remedy is

Petition for Review under Rule 45, except where the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment where you only need to file a Notice of
Appeal. Except also where the penalty imposed is
death where Notice of Appeal is not required because
there will be an automatic review.

19