1.

DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Criminal Procedure – is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension and
prosecution of persons accused of any criminal offense and for their punishment
in case of conviction.

Criminal Procedure – concerned with the procedural steps through which a

criminal case passes, commencing with the initial investigation of a crime and
concluding with the unconditional release of the offender

Criminal procedure – a generic term used to describe the network of laws and
rules which govern the procedural administration of criminal justice e.g. laws ad
court rules governing arrest, search and seizure, bail, etc.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR PROMULGATION OF RULES OF COURT

Rights of the accused under Article III (Bill of Rights)

Sec 1 – No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due

process of law.

Criminal due process requires that the accused must be proceeded against
under the orderly processes of law. In all criminal cases, the judge should follow
the step-by-step procedure requires by the rules. This is to assure that the
State makes no mistake in taking the life or liberty except of the guilty.

3. SYSTEMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Inquisitorial – Judge is not limited to the evidence brought before him but could
proceed with his own inquiry which was not confrontative

Accusatorial – the accusation is exercised by every citizen or by a member f the

group to which the injured party belongs. The supposed offender has a right to
be confronted by his accuser.

Mixed System – Combination of inquisitorial and accusatorial.

***As a general rule, a court proceeding in our judicial set-up is accusatorial or

adversary and not inquisitorial in nature. It contemplates two contending parties
before the court which hears them impartially and renders judgment only after
trial.

4. WHAT IS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

 Jurisdiction – the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a
cause.

Jurisdiction – the power to hera and determine issues of facts and of law, the
power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law and to pronounce the judgment

Criminal Jurisdiction – the authority to hear and try a particular offense and
impose the punishment for it.

5. HOW IS JURISDICTION ACQUIRED

** While jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law, jurisdiction over a criminal case

is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information

The jurisdiction of a court is determined by:

a) the geographical limits of the territory over which it presides and
b) the actions (civil and criminal), it is empowered to hear and decide

***Jurisdiction is expressly conferred by the Constitution and statutes. It cannot

be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act
of the parties.

*** It is the (substantive) law that confers jurisdiction and not the procedural
(rules)

*** Jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the

commencement of the action and not at the time of its commission even if the
penalty that may be imposed is less and does not fall under the court’s
jurisdiction.

***Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the

complaint or information and not by the findings the court may make after trial.

*** G.R. Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the end of
litigation. XPN: (a) express provision in the statute (b) clear intention of the
statute to apply provision before its enactment

6. CLASSES OF JURISDICTION

a. Jurisdiction over subject matter – the power to hear and determine cases
of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong

b. Jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed (territorial
Jurisdiction) – For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases,
the (1) offense should have been committed or (2) any one of its essential
ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
 ****HOWEVER, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the
offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
action for want of jurisdiction.

c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused – acquired upon his arrest or
upon his voluntary appearance

***An objection to the procedure of arrest must be raised before accused

enters his plea. The accused is also barred from questioning the
jurisdiction over his person when he enters his plea.
***Voluntary appearance is accomplished by appearing for arraignment.
Such jurisdiction once acquired is not lost but continues until the case is
terminated (trial in absentia)
***Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest and lack of or irregular
preliminary investigation (Sec 26 Rule 114) provided he raises them
before his plea

7. DOCTRINE OF HEIRARCHY OF COURTS

Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to the Supreme

Court is improper because the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and
must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily perform its
constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention
to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding
of its docket. Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court’s original
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in certain instances
on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the
petition, such as, (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the
advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest
of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4)
when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and
justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.

Under the principle of the hierarchy of courts, decisions, final orders or

resolutions of an MTC should be appealed to the RTC exercising territorial
jurisdiction over the former. On the other hand, RTC judgments, final
orders or resolutions are appealable to the CA through either of the
following: an ordinary appeal if the case was originally decided by the
RTC; or a petition for review under Rule 42, if the case was decided under
the RTC's appellate jurisdiction.

8. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

 The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge
of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even
if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. It applies where a
claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever
enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
administrative agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is
sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral
of such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if the parties
would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.

The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the

court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its
jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some
question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding
before the court.

9. REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCSE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Three important requisites must be present before a court can validly exercise its
power to hear and try a case:

a. Jurisdiction over subject matter

b. Jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed
c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

***The three must concur. Failing in one of them, a judgment of conviction is null
and void.

10. ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

a. The nature of the offense and/or penalty attached thereto; and

b. The fact that the offense has been committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court

11. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 AS AMENDED BY RA 7691 ( The Judiciary Re-
organization Act of 1980)

a. JURISDICTION OF RTC IN CRIMINAL CASES

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction:

 All criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body
  Issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction enforceable in any part
of their respective regions
 Special jurisdiction of certain branches to handle exclusively
criminal cases as may be determined by the supreme court
 All offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding 6 years
irrespective of the amount of fine and other accessory penalties
including civil liability

**** Additional penalty for habitual delinquency is not considered

because it is not a crime

 All Election offenses except those relating to the offense of

failure to register or failure to vote (MTC)
 All cases involving dangerous drugs except in the cities where
there as Juvenile and Domestic Relation Courts for offenders
under 16 years old
 Written defamation or libel (Art 360)
 Decree on Intellectual Property (PD 49)
 Cases which fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
Family Courts (RA 8369):
o Where one of the accused is 9-18 years old
o Cases against minors under Dangerous Drugs Act
o Violation of RA 7610
o Cases of domestic violence against women and children
 All cases on money laundering except those committed by
public officers and private persons who are in conspirary with
public officers

Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction:

 All cases decided by the MTC and MCTC within its territorial
jurisdiction

b. JURISDICTION OF MTC/MCTC IN CRIMINAL CASES

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction:

 All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial jurisdiction
 All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6
years (up to maximum of prision correccional) irrespective of
the amount of fine and other accessory penalties including
civil liability (applicable only to offenses punishable by
imprisonment OR fine)
 In cases punishable by FINE ONLY, not more than four
thousand pesos (P4,000)
  Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine
 In the absence of an RTC Judge in a province, MTCs and
MCTCs may hear petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
application for bail in criminal cases
 Violations of BP 22 which shall be governed by the Rules on
Summary Procedure in criminal cases
 Summary procedure in certain cases

FOR COMPLEX CRIMES:

Trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most
serious penalty shall have jurisdiction

i. REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE (1991)

The following cases are subject to summary procedure:

1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations
2. Violations of the rental law
3. BP 22 Cases
4. Violations of municipal or city ordinances
5. All other criminal cases punishable by imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months OR a fine not exceeding P1,000
6. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed
P10,000
**Filing of complaint may either be by complaint or information. In
Metro Manila and other chartered cidictionties –information.
**Accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses
within 5 days from filing
**Judgment to be released not later than 30 days after the
termination of the trial

Prohibited pleadings, motions and petitions in summary procedure

in civil and criminal cases:

1. Motion to quash the complaint of information or motion to

dismiss the complaint XPT if the ground is lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter or failure to comply with the barangay
conciliation proceedings
2. Motion for bill of particulars
3. Motion for new trial or for consideration of a judgment or for
reopening of trial
4. Petition for relief from judgment
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings affidavits or any
other paper
 6. Memoranda
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or any interlocutory order
issued by the court
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default
9. Dilatory Motions for postponement
10. Reply
11. Third party complaints
12. Interventions

12. JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OMBUDSMAN

SANDIGANBAYAN (RA 8249):

Exclusive original jurisdiction

 Violations of RA 3019 and Chapter II Sec 2 Title VII Book 2
of RPC (Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office) where one
or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions whether in a permanent, acting, or interim capacity
at the time of the commission of the offense:
o Officials of executive branch with salary grade 27 or
higher (a) to (g)
o Members of Congress and officials classified as grade
2
o Members of judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Consti
o Chairmen and members of the Constitutional
Commission without prejudice to provisions of Consti
o All other national and local officials with salary grade
27
 Violations of RA 1379 (forfeiture)
 Plunder (RA 7080 Sec 3)
 All offenses whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by public officials mentioned in (a) in relation to
their office
 Civil and criminal cases filed in connection with E.O. 1, 2, 12
and 14-A s. of 1986
 Writs of Mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction including quo warranto provided that
it is not within exclusive jurisdiction of Supreme Court arising
or that may arise in cases under E.O 1, 2, 12 and 14-A s.
1986 Provided that jurisdiction over these petitions shall not
be exclusive of the Supreme Court
  All cases regarding funds, money, assets and properties
illegally acquired by Ferdinand Marcos (E.O 14 Sec 2 –
Sequestration Cases)
 Cases filed by PCGG (co-equal with RTC)
 Money laundering cases when public officers are involved

***The Sandiganbayan also exercises civil jurisdiction

***In case private individuals are charged as co-principals,

accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees,
including those in GOCCs, they shall be tried jointly with the public
officers

***BUT in case a public officer or employee is charged as a mere

accomplice or accessory with a private individual as principal, the
former shall be tried jointly with the latter in the ORDINARY
COURT. – HERRERA

*** An official no longer has to be a principal accused. HE may

simply be an accomplice or accessory - RIANO

*** Jurisdiction over Military and PNP shall be within proper civil /
regular courts except for service-connected crimes

***Malfeasance and misfeasance in office:

 Knowingly rendering unjust judgment (Art 204)
 Judgment rendered thru negligence (Art 205)
 Unjust Interlocutory Order (Art 206)
 Malicious delay in the admin of justice (Art 207)
 Prosecution of Offenses, negligence and tolerance (Art 208)
 Betrayal of trust by an atty or solicitor (Art 209)
 Direct Bribery (210)
 Indirect Bribery (211)
 Qualified Bribery (211-A)
 Corruption of Public Officials (Art 212)

*** In relation to public office: the office must be a constituent

element of the crime as defined in the statute. The test is whether
the offense cannot exist without the office. The intimate relation
between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties
must be alleged in the information except when the office is a
constituent element of the offense charged.

*** (a) to (g) are subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

regardless of their salary grades
 ***Compensation is not an essential element of public office and is
merely incidental to public office

Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction:

 Final judgments, resolutions, or orders of RTC (certiorari)
 Jurisdiction to annul judgments of the RTC in a
sequestration related case.

OMBUDSMAN
***The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute Public
Officers for any illegal act or omission is not exclusive but a share concurrent
authority in respect of the offense charged.
*** The Ombudsman’s power to investigate us dependent on the cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. However, the Ombudsman may take over the
investigation of such case at any stage from any investigative agency of the govt.

13. WHAT IS CUSTODY OF LAW? HOW IS IT ACQUIRED?

Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is
thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become
obedient to the will of the law.

Custody of the law – literally custody over the body of the accused.
Includes but is not limited to detention.

**Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon application
for bail; jurisdiction over the person of the accused is not.

HOW ACQUIRED:
 When a person is confined or restrained

14. CUSTODY OF LAW VS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON

Custody of the law is not equal to jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.

***One can be under the custody of law but not yet subject to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person such as when a person arrested by
virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant
 ***One can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person and
yet not be in the custody of law as when the accused escapes custody
after his trial has commenced.

Custody of law is acquired when a person is confined, jurisdiction is

acquired upon arraignment.

15. CASES:
a. PP VS MARIANO
b. THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS COMELEC
c. JOSE PUA VS CITIBANK
d. ALLARILLA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
e. SUBIDO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
f. GIMENEZ VS NAZARENO
g. VADEPENAS VS PEOPLE
h. JOSE MIRANDA VS VIRGILIO TULIAO