CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS

Part I

A. Venue in Criminal Cases is Jurisdictional

1. Isip v. People, G.R. No.. 170298, June 26, 2007

- Petitioners were charged with estafa. He and his wife received certain
jewelries from Leonardo Jose for the purpose of selling the same on
commission basis and return if not sold. Case was filed in Cavite. Petitioner
claims that the transactions happened in Manila but failed to convince the
court.
- the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the
court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
adduced during the trial shows that the offense... was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
2. Landbank of the Philippines v. Belisata, G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 2007
- Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Courts, are given original and
exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all petitions for
the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]."
B. Jurisdiction to Issue Hold Departure Orders

1. Mondejar v. Buban, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1349, July 12, 2001

- Hold departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC
C. Jurisdiction determined by the allegations of the Complaint

1. Foz v. People, October 9, 2009, G.R. No. 167764

- When offended party is a public official or private person = filed in RTC of
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published
- When offended party is a private individual =filed in RTC of province where
he actually resided at the time of commission of offense
- When offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila = filed in RTC
of Manila
- When offended party is a public officer holding office outside Manila = filed
in RTC of province or city where he held office at the time of commission of
the offense
- The allegations in the information failed to establish that the article was first
published and printed in Iloilo. It also failed to establish that the residence of
Dr Portigo was in Iloilo at the time the offense was committed.
. Jurisdiction of the Sndiganbayan

1. People v. Sandiganbayan, August 25, 2009, G.R. No. 167304

 - The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be deteremined at the
time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of
the offense.
2. Serrana v. Sandiganbayan, January 22, 2008, G.R. 162059
- UP Student Regent case
- compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely
incidental to the public office.
- the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of anon-
stock Corporation and since trustees are one of those enumerated in Sec 4
(a) of PD 1606, then the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction regardless of her
salary grade.
3. Esquivel v. Ombudsman, September 17, 2002, G.R. 137237

E. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman

1. Department of Justice v. Liwag, February 11, 2005, G.R. No. 149311

2. Lazatin v. Desierto, June 5, 2009, G.R. No. 147097
3. Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee v. Desierto, July 24, 2007
4. Castro v. Deloria, January 27, 2009, G.R. No. 163586

F. Review of Decisions of the Ombudsman

1. Antonino v. Desierto, December 18, 2008, G.R. No. 144492

G. Procedure before the Ombudsman

1. Sesbreno v. Aglugub, February 28, 2005, A.M. No. MTJ 05-1581

H. Power of the Secretary of Justice over Prosecutors

1. Punzalan v. de la Pena, July 21, 2004, G.R. No. 158543

I. Role of the Office of the Solicitor General in Criminal Cases

1. People v. Duca, October 9, 2009, G.R. No. 171175

Part II

A. Complaint or Information (Rule 110)

a. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information

People v. Dimaano, 469 SCRA 647
Sasot v. People, 462 SCRA 138
 Lasoy v. Zenarosa, 455 SCRA 360
b. Substitution of Information
Saludga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 184537, April 23, 2010
c. Amended Information, Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010
d. Filing of Information if there is pending Motion for Reconsideration
Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 172476-99, September 15, 2010
e. Prescription
Panaguiton v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008
f. Control and Direction of Criminal Action
Pinote v. Ayco, 477 SCRA 409

B. Civil Aspect of a Criminal Case (Rule 111)

a. Rule in Civil Liability Arising from Delict

Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008
b. Independent Civil Action
c. Death of the Accused
d. Acquittal
e. Substitution
f. Prejudicial Question
Jose v. Suarez, 2010

C. Preliminary Investigation

a. Community Rural Bank v. Talavera, 455 SCRA 34

b. Serag v. Court of Appeals, 473 SCRA 590
c. Soriano v. People, G.R. No.162336, February 1, 2010
d. Samuel Lee v. KBC Bank, G.R. No. 164673, January 15, 2011

D. Arrest

a. People v. De Leon , G.R. No. 169858, January 26, 2010

b. People v. Laguio, March 16, 2007, G.R. No. 128587
c. Valdez v. People, G.R.170180, November 23, 2007
d. Rolito Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No.101837, February 11, 1992

E. Bail
a. Mabutas v. Perello, A.M.-RTJ No. 03-1817, June 8, 2005.
b. Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.181922, March 17, 2010
c. Lachica v. Tormis, A.M.-RTJ No. 05-1609September 20, 2005
d. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003

F. Rights of the Accused

a. Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45

b. Andrado v. People, 452 SCRA 685
c. Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, 465 SCRA 465
d. Libuit v. People, 469 SCRA 510
e. Magtolis v. Salud, 469 SCRA 439
f. Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases Against
Maguindanao Governor Ampatuan, June 2011