Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Criminal Procedure

Riano 2016 notes

Kirstie Marie Saldo

Criminal Procedure

- generic term to describe the network of laws and rules which governs the procedural
administration of justice.

- it treats of the rules and processes by which criminal laws are enforced and by which the
State prosecutes persons who violate such laws.

- provides or regulates the steps by which one who committed a crime is to be punished

- lays down the processes by which an offender is made to answer for the crime he

- GOAL: harmonizing the governmental functions of maintaining peace and order and
protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.

- INTERPRETATION: the rules on criminal procedure, being parts of the Rules of Court, shall
be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court)

- APPLICATION: the Court emphasized the need to view rules of procedure as tools to
facilitate the attainment of justice, such that any rigid and strict application thereof, which
results in technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice, must always be avoided.

Accusatorial/Adversarial System

- contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears them impartially and
renders judgment only after trial.

- the judicial set-up Philippines adopts

- judicial set-up wherein the judge is not permitted to act as an inquisitor who pursues his own
investigation and arrives at his own conclusion ex parte.

- the system has two-sided structure consisting of the prosecution and the defense where
each side tries to convince the court that its position is the correct version of the truth.

- in this system, the accusation starts with a formal indictment as a complaint or an

information, the allegations in which must be proven by the government beyond reasonable
doubt. The government and the accused present their evidence before the court which shall
decide either on the acquittal or conviction of the accused. In its decision making process,
that court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.

- the court, in this system, therefore, has a passive role and relies largely on the evidence
presented by both sides to the action in order to reach a verdict.

Inquisitorial System

- the court plays a very active role and is not limited to the evidence presented before it

- the court may utilize evidence gathered outside the court and a judge or a group of judges
under this system actively participates in the gathering of facts and evidence instead of
passively receiving information or evidence from the parties.

- the judge steers the course of the proceedings by directing and supervising the gathering of
the evidence and the questioning of the witnesses to the case

- the counsels in the inquisitorial system have less active roles than they have in the
adversarial system


- right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a cause— it is a question of

- imports the power and authority to hear and determine issues of facts and of law, the power
to inquire into the facts, to apply the law and to pronounce the judgment

- authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose punishment for it.

- exist as a matter of law

Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction:

a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter

b) Jurisdiction over the territory

c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

- refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case. It is, in
simple terms, jurisdiction over the offense charged.

Jurisdiction over the territory

- territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. The rule places
the venue of criminal cases either in the court of the municipal or territory (a) where the offense
was committed, or (b) where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

- requires that the person charged with the offense must have been brought into its forum for
trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

** Rules of procedure yield to substantive law.

** When the law confers jurisdiction, that conferment must be clear. It cannot be presumed. It
must appear from the statute or will not be held to exist.

** Jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or

information. The court, therefore, must look into the allegations of the written accusation for it
to know whether or not it has jurisdiction over the offense charged therein. If the facts set out in
the complaint or information are sufficient to show that the court has jurisdiction, then that
court indeed has jurisdiction.

** Only the allegations in the complaint or information constitute the guideposts in determining
the jurisdiction of the court, disregarding the defenses of the accused or whatever evidence is
presented during the trial.

** Subject matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal matters is measured by the law in effect at
the time of the commencement of a criminal action rather than by the law in effect at the time
of the commission of the offense charged.

** Other decisions have held that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined
by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action and not at the time of the
commission of the offense.

** Once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all
that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction.

** Once a court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by any subsequent
events, such as a new legislation placing such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another
tribunal. The only recognized exceptions to the rule arise when: (a) there is an express
provision in the statute, or (b) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before
its enactment.

Objections on jurisdictional grounds:

1. Objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter may
be raised or considered moot proprietary by the court at any stage of the proceedings or
on appeal.

2. A party, according to the Court, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction

3. A party may be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the court for reasons of public
policy as when he initially invokes the jurisdiction of the court and then later on repudiates
that same jurisdiction (Tijam v Sibonghanoy)

Tijam is an exception and not the general rule. The rule still stands that jurisdiction is vested by
law and cannot be conferred or waived by the parties. The reviewing court is not precluded
from ruling that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case.

** In criminal proceedings, it is not sufficient for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter. It also needs to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

** One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the

** The voluntary submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court is accomplished
either by his pleading to the merits such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings
requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, appearing for arraignment or entering trial.

** When the accused appears for arraignment, voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court is accomplished. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost but continues until the case is

** Voluntary submission may also be effected through some other acts as when he enters into a
counsel-assisted plea and actively participates in the trial and presents evidence for the
defense. Thus, the accused is deemed to have waived his constitutional protection against
illegal arrest.

** Making a special appearance in court to question the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the accused is not a voluntary appearance as when, in a criminal case, a motion to
quash is filed precisely on that ground.

** It has been held that the accused may make a special appearance before the court to
challenge the jurisdiction of the court over the person and such appearance is not tantamount
to estoppel or a waiver of the objection.

** Being in custody of the law is not necessarily being under the jurisdiction of the court.

Custody of the Law

- required before the court an act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the
adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application constitutes
a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused

- custody over the body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.

Injunction to Restrain Criminal Prosecution

- GENERAL RULE: Injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution since public
interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for protection
of society


- Injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the


- When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or

multiplicity of actions

- When there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice

- When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority

- Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance, or regulation

- When double jeopardy is clearly apparent

- When the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense

- Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution

- Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance

- When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash
on that ground has been denied


- Remedial measure for parties aggrieved which shall be issued when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.

- Writ of mandamus is not available to control discretion. Neither may it be issued to compel
the exercise of discretion. It is a matter of discretion on the part of the prosecutor to
determine which persons appear responsible for the commission of a crime.


1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial jurisdiction.

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 or
accessory penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses irrespective of
kind, nature, value or amount.

3. Except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
Sandiganbayan. The MTC has jurisdiction over offenses punishable by up to the maximum
of prison correctional which shall not exceed six (6) years. There are, however, offenses
which even if punishable by imprisonment not exceeding prison correctional, are not
cognizable by the MTC because of an express provision of law.

4. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property through criminal

5. Violations of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), which A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC, effective April
15, 2003, shall be governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure in criminal cases

6. Summary procedure in certain cases

7. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail in criminal cases in the absence of all
RTC judges in a province or city.

The following cases are subject to summary procedure (MTCs have jurisdiction over summary
procedure committed within their jurisdiction):

a) Violations of traffic laws, rules, and regulations

b) Violations of the rental law

c) B.P. 22 cases

d) Violations of municipal or city ordinances

e) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of
the civil liability arising therefrom

f) Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable
fine and does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000),

** The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and
his witnesses in such number of copies as there are accused plus two (2) copies for the court’s
files. This requirement has to be complied within five (5) days from the filing of the case,
otherwise, the same may be dismissed.

** The affidavits required to be submitted shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of
the affiants. The affidavit shall also show the competence of the affiants to testify to the
matters stated therein.

Before conducting the trial, the court shall call the parties to a preliminary conference during
which the following may be done:

(a) entering into a stipulation of facts

(b) considering the propriety of allowing the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser

(c) taking up such other matters to clarify the issued and to ensure a speedy disposition of the

** Any admission of the accused made during the preliminary conference must be reduced to
writing and signed by the accused and his counsel.

** During the trial, an actual direct examination of the witnesses is not required because the
affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute their direct testimonies. The witnesses,
however, may be subjected to a cross examination, re-direct examination, or re-cross

** Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall not be considered as competent evidence
for the party presenting the affidavit. However, the adverse party may utilize the same for any
admissible purpose.

** The court is mandated not to order the arrest of the accused except where the ground is his
failure to appear when required by the court. If he is arrested, he may be released on bail or on
recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.

** Where a trial has been conducted, the court shall promulgate the judgment not later than
thirty (30) days after the termination of the trial.

Prohibited pleadings, motions, and petitions in Summary Procedure (Bar 2004) in civil and
criminal cases:

a) Motion to quash the complaint or information or motion to dismiss the complaint except if
the ground is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with barangay
conciliation proceedings

b) Motion for bill of particulars

c) Motion for a new trial, or for consideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial

d) Petition for relief from judgment

e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper

f) Memoranda

g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by
the court

h) Motion to declare the defendant in default

i) Dilatory motions for postponement

j) Reply

k) Third-party complaints

l) Interventions

Criminal Jurisdiction of the RTC:

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not with the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo

warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction enforceable in any part of their respective regions

3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction

4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to handle exclusively criminal cases as may be

determined by the Supreme Court

5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws such as:

1. Jurisdiction over criminal and civil aspects of written defamation

2. Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165)

3. Jurisdiction of designated RTC branches for violations of intellectual property rights

4. Money laundering cases not under Sandiganbayan

Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (PD 1606 as amended by RA 7975 and RA 8249)

1. Violations of RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA
1379 and Chapter 2, Section 2, Title 7, Book 2 of the RPC 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 of:

a) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of the regional

director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher of the

Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989

i) Provincial governors, vice governors, members of Sangguniang

Panlalawigan, provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other

provincial department heads

ii) City mayors, vice mayors, members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod,

city treasurer, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads

iii) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul

and higher

iv) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers

of higher rank

v) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position

of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent

or higher

vi) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and

prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman, and special prosecutor

vii) Presidents, directors or trustees or managers of government-owned

or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or


2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the
compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to EO No.s 1, 2, 14, and 14-A

** Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,

resolutions or orders of RTC whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction of their
appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

** BP 129 as well as the implementing rules of the SC shall apply to appeals and petitions for
review filed with the Sandiganbayan.

** In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme
Curt, the Office of the Ombudsman through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of
the Philippines except in cases filed pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A.

** In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices, or accessories with

the public officers or employees, including those employed in GOCCs, they shall be tried jointly
with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over them.

** An official no longer has to be a principal accused. It is sufficient that at least one go them be
an official occupying any of the positions enumerated.

Offenses subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:

a) Violations of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

b) Violations of RA 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State of Any Property
Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee

c) Violations of Chapter 2, Section 2, Title 7, Book 2 of RPC (Bribery and corruption of public

d) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed, with other crimes, committed by
public officials mentioned in letter a of Sec 4 in relation to their office.