Jurisdiction

1. After reviewing the record of a preliminary investigation of a homicide case, the

Secretary of Justice reversed the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor and directed the
latter to move for the dismissal of the Information which had been filed in the Regional trail
Court of Pasig. The Provincial Prosecutor thus filed such motion.
a) May the RTC judge refuse to order the dismissal of the criminal case and insist on
the arraignment and trial of the accused?

Answer:
Yes. Upon the filing of the information, the court acquires jurisdiction over the
criminal action. The subsequent filing of a motion for dismissal, even upon the direction of
the Secretary of Justice, is addressed for the consideration of the court, and the court in the
exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require the arraignment and
trial of the accused.

b) If the judge refuses to grant the Provincial Prosecutor’s motion to dismiss, may a
special civil action for mandamus lie to compel the judge to grant motion? (1991, # 11)

Answer:
No, mandamus will not lie because the court has discretion whether to grant or deny
the motion.

2. After an information for homicide was filed by the city prosecutor in the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, the accused asked the prosecutor for a reinvestigation, which he
granted. After the reinvestigation, the prosecutor filed a motion in court to withdraw the
information having found no sufficient evidence to continue with the prosecution of the
case.
Considering that the prosecutor has the direct control and supervision over the
prosecution of the case, are the steps undertaken by him proper under the circumstances?
Decide with reasons. (1990, #18)

Answer:
Yes, the prosecutor may file a motion to withdraw the information. However, the
motion may be denied by the court, in which case the prosecutor will be required to present
whatever evidence he has. If the court gravely abuses its discretion, certiorari lies.

The defense in a rape case contended that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the case because the complaint was filed by the mother and not by the father of the
offended girl who was only eleven years old. The father, it was claimed, has the exclusive
authority to file the complaint. Is the defense tenable? Reason. (1976, #8)
Answer:
No, the law and the ROC provide that where the offended party in a private crime is a
minor, the parents have the right to file the complaint. The father has no preferential right to
file the complaint. Consequently, the mother may file the complaint and the court acquires
jurisdiction over the case.

What are the criminal cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
SC?(1975, #19)
Answer:
Under Section 17 of the Judiciary Act as amended, the SC shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to the review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal as the law or the rules
of court may provide, final judgments and degree of inferior courts in all criminal cases
involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment; and those
involving other offenses which although not so punished, arose out the same occurrence or
which may have been committed by the accused on the same occasion, as that giving rise
to the more serious offense, regardless of whether the accused are charged as principals,
accomplices or accessories, or whether they have been tried jointly or separately

The SC would also have exclusive accurate jurisdiction in criminal cases where the
constitutionality, legality, jurisdiction or question of law is involved.
In a certain civil case, the trial court on 30 April 1974 issued an order setting the pre-
trial for May 12, 1974 at 8:30 AM. On May 3, 1974, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. At the hearing of the motion on 7 May
1974 where both parties and their counsels appeared, the court gave the plaintiff 10 days
within which to file his written opposition to the motion to dismiss. On 12 May 1974, the
date of the pre-trial already mentioned, only the defendant and his counsel appeared while
the plaintiff and his counsel did not despite due notice, hence, on motion of the defendant,
the court dismissed the complaint for non-suit. Is the action of the court proper? State your
reasons. (1975, #20)
Answer:
The action of the trial court is not proper. It is error for the trial court to dismiss the
complaint for failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial conference where it appears
that the defendant has previously filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the
trial court has granted the plaintiff a certain number pf days within which to file its
opposition. The trial court should have resolved first the question of jurisdiction before
proceeding with pre-trial conference. Besides the order giving the plaintiff a certain number
of days to end beyond the date set for pre-trial is deemed to supersede the prior agreement
respecting the pre-trial conference. It should also be noted that it is improper for defendant
to ask the trial court to declare plaintiff non-suited for failure to appear at the pre-trial
conference while in the same breath questioning its jurisdiction to try and decide the case.