I.

a. What is Criminal Procedure?

It 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 (Herrera, Vol.
IV, p. 1, 2007 ed.).

Criminal procedure is 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.

It is a generic term used to describe the
network of laws and rules which govern the
procedural administration of criminal
justice, e.g., laws and court rules (e.g..
Rules of Criminal Procedure) governing
arrest, search and seizure, bail, etc.

b. Sources of Criminal Procedure
1. The Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure.
2. General Orders No. 58, dated April 23,
1900.
3. Amendatory Acts passed by the Philippine
Commission.
4. The various quasi acts, the Philippine Bill of
1902, the Jones Law of 1916, the Tydings-
McDuffie Law and the Constitution of the
Philippines.
5. The Rules of Court of 1940 and the 1964,
1985 and 1988 Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
6. Various Republic Acts, e.g., R.A. No. 240;
New Rule 127, providing for attachment;
R.A. No. 296, Judiciary Act of 1948 denning
criminal jurisdiction, and B.P. Big. 129 as
amended by R.A. No. 7691; R.A. No. 8249,
Creating the Sandiganbayan; R.A. No.
8349, The Speedy Trial Act of 1998.
7. Presidential Decrees, e.g., P.D. No. 911;
R.A. No. 732, regulating the authority of
Prosecuting Fiscals to Conduct Preliminary
Investigation.
8. Constitution Rights of an Accused under
Article III.
9. The Civil Code. (Arts. 32, 33 and 34)
10. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting
our laws which form part of our legal
system.
11. R.A. No. 8493, The Speedy Trial Act of
1998.
12. Circulars.
13. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

c. 3 Systems of Criminal Procedure
1. Inquisitorial. The detection and
prosecution of offenders are not left to the
initiative of private parties but to the
officials and agents of the law.

Resort is made to secret inquiry to discover
the culprit and violence and torture were
often employed to extract a confession.

The Judge was not limited to the evidence
brought before him but could proceed with
his own inquiry which was not confrontative.
2. Accusatorial. The accusation is
exercised by every citizen or by a member
of the group to which the injured party
belongs.

As the action is a combat between the
parties, the supposed offender has the right
to be confronted by his accuser.
The battle in the form of a public trial is judged
by a magistrate who renders the verdict.

3. The Mixed System. This is a
combination of the inquisitorial and the
accusatorial systems.

Thus, the examination of defendants and
other persons before the filing of the
complaint or information may be
inquisitorial.


This is particularly true in the Preliminary
examination, for the purpose of issuing a
warrant of arrest.

Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, a criminal action may be
instituted by complaint of the offended
party or by information filed by the Fiscal
and once the criminal action is filed in court,
the accused has the right to confront and
cross-examine his accuser.

It has, however, been held that:
"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


II.
a. What is Criminal Jurisdiction?
is the authority to hear and try a particular
offense and impose the punishment for it.

The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a
court is determined by:
(1) the geographical limits of the
territory over which it presides, and
(2) the actions (civil and criminal), it is
empowered to hear and decide.

b. Elements of Criminal Jurisdiction
The elements of jurisdiction of a trial court
over the subject matter in a criminal case
are:
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.
The non-concurrence of either of these two
elements may be challenged by an accused
at any stage of the proceedings in the court
below or on appeal.
Failing in one of them, a judgment of
conviction is null and void.

c. Requisites of Valid Exercise of Criminal
Jurisdiction
Three important requisites must be present
before a court can validly exercise its power
to hear and try a case:

a. It must have jurisdiction over the
subject matter;
b. It must have jurisdiction over the
territory where the offense was
committed;
c. It must have jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.

d. Other Principles Concerning Criminal
Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION
a. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is
determined by: (1) the geographical limits of the
territory over which it presides, and (2) the action
(civil and criminal) it is empowered to hear and
decide.
b. As the question of jurisdiction is always of
importance, if the prosecution fails to prove that
fact, the court may always permit it to present
additional evidence to show the fact that the crime
was committed within its jurisdiction.
c. The filing of a complaint or information in Court
initiates a criminal action.
The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over
the case, which is the authority to hear and
determine the case.
When after the filing of the complaint or
information a warrant for the arrest of the
accused is issued by the trial court and the
accused either voluntarily submitted himself
to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court
thereby acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.
d. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of an
action is fatal and an objection based upon this
ground may be interposed at any stage of the
proceedings.
Jurisdiction is conferred only by the
sovereign authority which organizes the
courts.
When jurisdiction over an offense has not
been conferred by law, the accused cannot
confer it by express waiver or otherwise.
Jurisdiction over criminal cases cannot be
conferred by consent.
Even if a party fails to file a motion to
quash, he may still question the jurisdiction
of the court later on.
Moreover, these objections may be raised or
considered motu proprio by the court at any
stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
e. If under the law the court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter, it cannot take cognizance of the
case, notwithstanding the silence or acquiescence of
the accused.
The exception is when there is estoppel by
laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction.
f. Estoppel by Laches to Question Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
Generally, the doctrine of estoppel does not
apply as against the people in criminal
prosecutions.
The principle, however, earlier laid down in
the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy2'' which
bars a party from attacking the jurisdiction
of the court by reason of estoppel by laches
have been extended to criminal cases.
See, however, Fuzume v. Court of'Appeals,
holding that accused or the court may motu
proprio raise lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter in a criminal case for the
first time on Appeal.
Immunity from suit is a jurisdictional
question.
g. Principle that there is no estoppel against State
The settled rule is that the State is not estopped by
the mistakes of its officers and employees. Indeed,
in Cruz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, the Court declared:

. . . Estoppel does not lie against the government because of
the supposedly mistaken acts or omissions of its agents.

As we declared in People v. Castaneda, "there is the long
familiar rule that erroneous application and enforcement of
the law by public officers do not block subsequent correct
application of the statute and that the government is never
estopped by mistake or error on the part of its agents."

The Court also held in Chua v. Court of Appeals:
. . . While ordinarily, certiorari is unavailing where the
appeal period has lapsed, there are exceptions. Among them
are:
(a) when public welfare and the advancement of
public policy dictates;
(b) when the broader interest of justice so requires;
(c) when the writs issued are null and void; or
(d) when the questioned order amounts to an
oppressive exercise of judicial authority... .

h. A conviction or acquittal before a court having no
jurisdiction is, like all proceedings in the case,
absolutely void, and is therefore no bar to
subsequent indictment and trial in a court which has
jurisdiction of the offense.
i.
ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION
Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the
end of the litigation.
Ordinarily, jurisdiction once acquired is not affected by
subsequent legislative enactment placing jurisdiction in
another tribunal.

It remains with the court until the case is finally terminated.
Thus, it has been held that the Sandiganbayan or the courts
as the case may be, cannot be divested of jurisdiction over
cases filed before them by reason ofR.A. No. 7975.
They retain their jurisdiction until the end of the litigation.

EXCEPTION TO PRINCIPLE OF ADHERENCE
Where, however, the subsequent statute expressly provides,
or is construed to the effect that it is applicable to operate as
to actions pending before its enactment.
Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no
retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was
pending prior to the enactment of the statute.
R.A. No. 7975 by virtue of Section 7 belongs to the exception
rather than a rule.
The provision is transitory in nature and expresses the
legislature's intention to apply its provisions on jurisdiction to
criminal cases in which trial has not began in the
Sandiganbayan. To this extent R.A. No. 7975 is retroactive.
In another case, the court held that although the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction at the time the charge was
filed, it lost jurisdiction upon the enactment of R.A. No. 7975
because he falls below the rank of full colonel, and trial has
not yet begun.
In Lacson v. Executive Secretary, the amendment in R.A. No.
8249 that in cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade "27" or higher, as
prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and
PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal
circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Big.
129, as amended, was applied to the pending criminal case in
the Sandiganbayan.
The previous law vests jurisdiction in the RTC where none of
the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding
to Salary Grade 27.
The term "principal" was deleted so that under the
amendment, if an accomplice belongs to Salary Grade 27,
then jurisdiction is with the Sandiganbayan even if none of
the principals belong to a lower salary grade. The amendment
was applied retroactively.

JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSE
a. In criminal cases, the court must examine the complaint
for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set
out and the punishment provided by law for such act, fall
within the jurisdiction of the court.
If the criminal act charged is punished by law with a penalty
which pertains to the jurisdiction of the court, it falls under
the original jurisdiction thereof, although the penalty it may
have to impose in accordance with the evidence is below that
which falls under its jurisdiction.
b. Where a complaint is presented in court charging the
defendant with murder, at the close of the trial, the court
finds that the crime committed was assault and battery only.
Justices of the peace have original jurisdiction over the
offense of assault and battery, the complaint, however, gave
the Court of First Instance jurisdiction over the alleged crime.
It retains jurisdiction for the purpose of imposing the penalty
provided for by law for the crime proved to have been
committed.
c. Where the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and
the person of the accused, it is not necessary, in order to
maintain that jurisdiction, to decide the case correctly.
The Court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly.
d. It is not a jurisdictional defect and one which deprives the
court of its authority to try, convict and pass sentence, that a
criminal action is brought in the name of the City of Manila
instead of the united States.
The fact constitutes a mere defect or error curable at any
stage of the action, it does not deprive the court of the power
to pronounce a valid judgment and impose a valid sentence,
and it cannot be made the basis of a writ of habeas corpus
e. The court having jurisdiction of the offense has also
jurisdiction to determine the disposition of the instrument
used in the commission of the crime.
As an accessory penalty, the instrument used in the
commission of the offense shall be forfeited unless it belongs
to a third person who is not liable for the offense which the
instrument was used to commit.
It is the duty of the court therefore to dispose of the same
upon the application of any person interested.
The person to whom the instrument belongs has a right to
take his proceeding to the court having jurisdiction of the
offense for the purpose of having his rights in the premises
determined.
f. Where a court is given jurisdiction over a specific class of
crimes, that jurisdiction will continue whether that class be
enlarged or diminished or whether the penalty for a violation
be increased or diminished.
g. Where the military authorities had jurisdiction over the person of a
military officer at the time of the alleged offenses, the jurisdiction having
been vested, it is retained up to the end of the proceedings.

III.
A. Section 32. Jurisdiction of
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in criminal cases. Except in
cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Regional Trial
Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over
all violations of city or municipal
ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over
all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of fine,
and regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties, including
the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value, or
amount thereof: Provided, however, That
in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence they shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof. (as amended by R.A, No. 7691)
A.
B.
IV.