Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls.

check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

LAW ON JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

Before we take up the rules on criminal procedure, we have to review the law on jurisdiction. Just like in civil cases, we have to know the jurisdiction of the different courts before we take up the provisions. Q: How do we define jurisdiction with reference to criminal cases? A: Jurisdiction in criminal cases has been defined as the power and authority of a court to take cognizance of an offense and to pronounce the judgement or sentence provided by law after a trial in the manner prescribed. (Albert, Law on Criminal Procedure, p. 56) Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases: A: The following: 1. Territorial jurisdiction; 2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter; and 3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused. First Element: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION In civil cases, the place is never considered part of jurisdiction. It is only a question of venue that the case should be tried in Manila or Davao is never considered as jurisdictional. But in criminal procedure, the place where the trial is to be heard is not only a question of venue but also a question of jurisdiction. It is called territorial jurisdiction. Q: Define Territorial Jurisdiction. A: Territorial jurisdiction refers to the limits of the geographical boundaries of a place within which a court has jurisdiction to act judicially and outside of which its judicial acts are null and void. (Mendoza vs. B.T. Co., 90 Phil. 804) Q: How is territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases determined? A: The territorial jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the geographical area over which it presides, and the fact that the crime was committed, or any of its essential ingredients took place, within said area is an element of jurisdiction. (U.S. vs. Jueves, 23 Phil. 100) The area of authority of said court is found in Section 2 of the Interim Rules:
Section 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trail Courts shall exercise their jurisdiction in the city, municipality or circuit for which the judge thereof is appointed or designated. Thus, a judge appointed to the municipality or circuitized municipalities would have jurisdiction over the said place. (a) Regional Trial Courts shall exercise its jurisdiction within the area defined by the Supreme Court as the territory over which the particular branch concerned shall exercise its authority, in accordance with Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129.

There is no problem with the MTCs and MCTCs where the crime is committed there. Pero yung RTC, it is not really the province because the province can be split into several areas - itong RTC branch na ito, dito ka. So it is the limit of its authority as defined by the SC pursuant to the Judiciary Law the place or municipality where the particular RTC branch exercises jurisdiction. Every RTC branch has its own area of responsibility. Meaning, in one province there are many RTC branches which are scattered. A branch in a particular place will only exercise jurisdiction over its designated territory, a small portion, not the whole province. The territory is defined by the SC. (Section 18, B.P. Blg. 129)

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
Second Element: JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter in criminal cases determined? A: It is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information in accordance with the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. (U.S. vs. Mallari, 24 Phil. 366; People vs. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715) EXAMPLE: At the time the crime is committed, it was triable by the RTC, but when the charge was filed in court, it is MTC na because the jurisdiction of the MTC was increased. Q: Saan ang sundin natin? RTC, which is the law at the time the crime is committed? Or MTC, which is the law at the time the case was filed? A: Dun sa MTC. You follow the latter. This is not a question of prejudice, this is purely procedural. We are not talking here of a retroactive effect of penal law where the law is more favorable to the accused no? This is just a question of jurisdiction, not a question of law. So, it is the law in force at the time of the filing of the action is what determines the jurisdiction of the court. Q: To be more precise, how do we know where the court has or no jurisdiction? A: Essentially, it is determined by the penalty provided by the law for the offense as that offense is charged in the complaint or information. (People vs. Pecson, 92 Phil. 172; Punzalan vs. People, 99 Phil. 295) Third Element: JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused? A: It is conferred upon the court either by the voluntary appearance or surrender of the accused, or by his arrest to answer for the crime charged. (Choc vs. Vera, 64 Phil. 1066) JURISDICTION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS Let us now go over the jurisdiction of the different courts in the Philippines. We will start with the Supreme Court, and then down. Remember that there are two (2) special courts also authorized to try criminal cases: (1) the Family Courts acting through RTCs, and (2) the Sandiganbayan. SUPREME COURT (SC) Q: What criminal cases are within the jurisdiction of the SC? Well, one of them are cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls. It is very rare. But let us concentrate on the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the SC in criminal cases. A: The following: 1. All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; 2. Other offenses which, although not so punished, arose out of 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. EXAMPLE: Hannah is the principal, accused of murder. Maying is the accomplice and JJ is the accessory. All of them are found guilty. For the principal, sigurado perpetua ang pinakamababa nyan so SC ka! How about the accomplice? Reclusion Temporal man lang yan ba! And the accessory? Prision Mayor. In order not to split the jurisdiction, all of them will be appealed to the SC.

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

3. Even if the penalty is less than reclusion perpetua, death or life imprisonment, where the issue on appeal is pure question of law. EXAMPLE: Suppose the crime is homicide. The penalty imposed is reclusion temporal 20 years or less definitely sa Court of Appeals yan. However, if the issue on appeal is purely legal question lang - 100% legal, no factual issue SC yan. The mode of appeal is Rule 45 Appeal by Cetiorari. COURT OF APPEALS (CA) Lets go to the CA. Simple: If a case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the SC, then necessarily it falls within the CAs jurisdiction. That is, the penalty imposed is less than perpetua and the appeal is not purely a question of law; the appeal either involves question of fact or mixed question of law and fact. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC)
Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. (BP 129)

The jurisdiction of the RTC in criminal cases is provided for in Section 20, BP 129 which is very broad in general provided it does not belong to the Sandiganbayan or the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). So what does not belong to the Sandiganbayan or the MTC belongs to the RTC. Therefore, the best guide is determine the jurisdiction of the MTC. Let us forget the Sandiganbayan for the meanwhile. If it does not belong to the MTC, it should be to the RTC. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC) Q: What law governing the jurisdiction of the MTC? A: Section 32, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691. RA 7691 is the law expanding the jurisdiction of the MTC which took effect last April 05, 1994.
Sec. 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 of 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 offense involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A. 7691)

There are only two (2) things to remember: 1. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction 2. all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine When the prescribed penalty is below six (6) years or kung prision correctional and down, puro MTC lahat yan. Everything above six (6) years, RTC ang jurisdiction.

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

Q: Suppose if the penalty prescribed is imprisonment, fine or both? A: Never mind the fine and the both. Just look at the imprisonment. That is the innovation by the new rules. The fine is never considered in determining the jurisdiction. All you have to do is look at the imprisonment, i.e. above six (6) years RTC; six (6) years and below MTC. RTC JURISDICTION: Above six (6) years, regardless fine MTC JURISDICTION: Six (6) years and below, regardless of fine Q: Suppose the penalty prescribed by law is 100% fine? There are crimes na walang imprisonment eh where the prescribed penalty is only fine. What will happen? A: Under the SC Circular 04-94, if the penalty is imprisonment and fine, or imprisonment or fine, never mind the fine and concentrate on the imprisonment. But if the penalty prescribed is purely fine, apply the old law before RA 7691: it depends on the amount prescribed by law. Under the old law, if the maximum fine is P4,000 or less MTC yan. If the penalty prescribed by law is purely fine and above P4,000 RTC yan. Where the prescribed by law is purely fine: MTC P4,000 or less RTC above P4,000 However, the exception to the exception is when the crime is damage to property, like reckless imprudence, because in the crime of damage to property through criminal negligence the penalty is only fine, wala yang imprisonment under the RPC and the fine is equal to the damage or not more than three (3) times the amount of the damage. EXAMPLE: You bumped a car and you wreck it. The car is worth P100,000. Ano ang penalty? The minimum fine is P100,000 equal to the value of the damage and the maximum is P300,000 (three times the value of the damage, Article 365, RPC). So the fine could range from P100,000 to P300,000. Q: Sa RTC na ba yan because it is above P4,000? A: No! Basta damage to property through reckless imprudence, automatically it is the MTC regardless of the amount of fine. The P4,000 is only for crimes other than damage to property through reckless imprudence. Outline of the jurisdiction of the MTC and RTC over criminal cases: RTC: 1. when the prescribed penalty for the offense is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine; 2. when the prescribed penalty for the offense is fine only and the imposable fine exceeds P4,000. MTC: 1. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; 2. all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine; 3. when the prescribed penalty is fine only and the imposable amount does not exceed P4,000; 4. when the offense involves damage to property through criminal negligence irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine. Take note, jurisdiction is determined by the principal penalty not by the civil liability, additional penalty or the subsidiary penalty, which changed the previous rules under the old jurisprudence. Under the old jurisprudence in the old case of U.S. vs. Bernardo, the SC ruled that the penalty for simple seduction is only arresto mayor [not more than 6 months]. It cannot be tried by the old MTC. It

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

should only be tried by the CFI (now, RTC) because under Article 345 of the RPC, in the event that the accused is convicted there be a judgment for support and the acknowledgment of the child which can only be decreed by the CFI. So what determines the jurisdiction of the court is not the criminal penalty by the civil liability. Pero bahaw na yan!! Those pronouncements are already obsolete. Now, never mind the civil liability. So, in simple seduction [below 6 months], the MTC can order for the support and acknowledgment of the child because that is only incidental. What is important is six (6) months lang ang penalty. CASE: Suppose Sir Jet is convicted of less serious physical injuries for the 6th time within a period of 10 years only. The penalty for such crime is only arresto mayor six (6) months maximum. But since Sir Jet is already a habitual delinquent, may patong na yan where the penalty can reach as high as 6 months to 14 years and 8 months. Q: Where are you going to file the case? A: That is what happened in the case of People vs. Custoso where the SC held that the case should be file din the RTC because you consider the principal plus the additional penalty. But this doctrine is already obsolete. Under the present law RA 7691, we do not consider the additional penalty, only the principal penalty. Since less serious physical injuries is punishable by arresto mayor only, it should be filed in the MTC. Take note the opening clause of Section 32: Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan. In other words, if the crime has a penalty of six (6) years or lower, dapat talaga MTC. It cannot be tried by the MTC if the law says it is falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC or the Sandiganbayan [if the law itself ba!]. If the law says this case shall be tried with the RTC, sundin mo yan and never mind the penalty because the law specifically provides in what court you should file it. Even if the penalty is one (1) month imprisonment, pag-sinabi ng law RTC, you follow it. Q: Give instances of this exception. In what cases will the RTC will try the case even if the penalty is only six (6) years or less? A: There are four (4) instances as laid down by the SC in cases of MORALES VS. CA, 283 SCRA 211 (1997) and COMELEC vs. NHOYNAY , 292 SCRA 254 (1998): 1. Libel Klaro sa Article 360, RPC na RTC, pero if you look at the penalty for libel, hindi man makaabot ng six (6) years ba! Article 360 prevails. 2. The Decree on Intellectual Property. Criminal cases for the violation of the Decree on Intellectual Property mga trademarks yan. 3. The Dangerous Drugs Act. Basta Dangerous Drugs, automatic RTC yan even if the penalty is prision correcional lang. 4. Violation of the Omnibus Election Code Criminal cases arising from the vilations of the Omnibus Election Code is with the RTC even if the penalty is below six (6) years and one (1) day (Comelec vs. Nhoynay) FAMILY COURTS Q: What criminal cases are falling within the original jurisdiction of the Family Courts under RA 8369 An Act Establishing Family Courts? A: The following under Section 5, RA 8369:

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below 18 years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age, or one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. So for example: 10 years old na bata, sinuntok mo slight physical injuries sa Family Courts yan. Hindi yan pwede sa MTC because regardless of the penalty basta below 18 years old siya, Family Courts yan whether he is the accused or the offended party. 2. Criminal cases against minors under the Dangerous Drugs Act; and 3. Violations of RA 7610 the famous child Abuse Law as amended by RA 7658. But since the Family Courts have not yet been constituted, the temporary measure is some RTC branches were designated as acting as Family Courts. Here in Davao, the salas of Judge Breva and Judge Archangel are designated as Family Courts. Temporary set-up lang yan. They are still RTC but acting as Family Courts. SANDIGANBAYAN The most confusing is the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Everyone is always confused with this Sandiganbayan. It is the most controversial. How do you know that the case is to be tried by the Sandiganbayan or by the regular courts? It does not mean naman that all crimes committed by a public officer must be with the Sandiganbayan. It could be with the Sandiganbayan or it could be with the RTC or MTC. If you know the jurisdiction of the RTC or MTC, there is no problem. Above six (6) years RTC; below six (6) years MTC. But the problem is whether it is with the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts, because for the Sandiganbayan, doon, regardless of the penalty na naman. Even if the penalty is above six (6) years or six (6) years and below, if it is triable before the Sandiganbayan, you go there. Forget the penalty. That is where there is some confusion. Maraming naguguluhan! Q: What is the guideline in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan? A: The latest governing law is RA 8249 approved on February 05, 1997. This is what it requires: 1. What kind of position in t he government does he hold or occupy? 2. What criminal cases was committed by him? WHAT KIND OF POSITION IN THE GOVERNMENT DOES HE HOLD OR OCCUPY? Sino ba itong taong ito? if he is a governor, vice-governor, member of the sanggunian, provincial treasure, assessor, engineers and other provincial department head, city mayor, vice mayor, members of the sanggunian panglungsod, city treasurer, assessor, engineer, other city department heads, official of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher, Philippine army and air force, colonels and naval captains and all officers of higher rank, officers of the PNP while occupying the position of provincial directors and those holding the rank of Senior Superintendent or higher, city and provincial prosecutors and their assistant, and officials and prosecutors of the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor, presidents, directors or trustees or managers of GOCCs, state universities or educational institutions or foundations; members of Congress; members of the Constitutional Commission without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; [ito ang pinakamaganda:] all other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher. Those specified positions or even if you are just an ordinary employee but you are Grade 27 or higher coupled with Anti-Graft crime or crime committed in relation to your office Sandiganbayan yan, forget the penalty.

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

If he is below Grade 27 and the crime is anti-graft or a crime committed in relation to his office, then it is not Sandiganbayan. It is either RTC or MTC. Tingnan mo lang ang Grade. That is the cue. Madali man lang ba: you just correlate the nature of the crime and the nature of the position. WHAT CRIMINAL CASE WAS COMMITTED BY HIM? When it comes to criminal cases, dalawa (2) lang yan eh: Anti-Graft cases or violation of RA 1379 [Forfeiture of an illegally acquired property]. But more or less Anti-Graft would be a better example since anyway majority of the cases falls there. Q: How about those in the RPC? A: Find out whether the crime was committed by the public officer in relation to his office. Yan muna ang babantayan mo. If it is outside of those two [anti-graft or not anti-graft but the crime is committed in relation to his office], wala na, forget the Sandiganbayan. What do you mean by crime committed in relation to the office of the person accused? In the case of PEOPLE vs. MONTEJO 108 Phil. 652 FACTS: This is a case for murder filed against the former Mayor Leroy Brown of Basilan City together with some Basilan policeman. Brown ordered his men to arrest the suspect and he was interrogated. It is in the course of the investigation or interrogation that they committed the crime of murder. ISSUE: Was the crime of murder committed in relation to his office? HELD: Yes. In other words, if they were not public officers they would not have succeeded in committing the crime. Although public office is not an element of the crime of murder in abstract, as committed by the main respondents herein, according to the amended information, the offense therein charged is intimately connected with their respective offices and was perpetrated while they were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions. Indeed, they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices. The co-defendants of respondent Leroy S. Brown, obeyed his instructions because he was their superior officer, as Mayor of Basilan City. Of course, normally when you say in relation to his office mga falsification or malversaton yan, talagang klaro. That is the normal meaning. That is why in the 1995 case of CUNANAN VS. ARCEO, 242 SCRA, the SC held that an offense may be considered as committed in relation to the accused's office if the offense cannot exist without the office such that the office is a constituent element of the crime. Let us try to compare this in the case of SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU 207 SCRA 627 FACTS: Mayor Sanchez of Calauan was charged with rape and homicide for the deaths of Aileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez. They were charged before the RTC. Sanchez

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC that since he is an incumbent mayor at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, his case should be tried before the Sandiganbayan. ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. HELD: Yes. The case should be tried by the RTC and not Sandiganbayan. The case of Sanchez was not considered in relation to their office. There is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and Sanchez office as municipal mayor because public office is not an essential element of the crime charged. The offense can stand independently of the office. Moreover, it is not even alleged in the information that the commission of the crime charged was intimately connected with the performance of Sanchez official functions to make it fall under the exception laid down in People vs. Montejo. In that case of People vs. Montejo, a city mayor and several detectives were charged with murder for the death of a suspect as a result of a third degree investigation held at a police substation. The Supreme Court held that even if their position was not an essential ingredient of the offense, there was nevertheless an intimate connection between the office and the offense, as alleged in the information, that brought it within the definition of an offense committed in relation to the public office. Indeed, they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices. We have read the informations in the case at bar and find no allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to Sanchez was connected with the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor or that there is an intimate connection between the offense and his office. It follows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan. LACSON vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 301 SCRA 298 (1999) HELD: It is not enough to say that the crime committed is in relation to his office. You must make specific allegations to show really the connection. Otherwise, it will not be tried by the Sandiganbayan but by the regular courts. While the information states that the above-name principal accused committed the crime of murder in relation to their public office there is, however, no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that the accused arrested and investigated the innocent victim and killed the latter while in their custody. Dapat: nahulinag-imbestigatapos, pinatay yun, maconsider pa! Pero pag-sinabi mo na they killed him in relation to their office, without further explanation wala! It becomes merely a conclusion lang ba. The mere allegation in the information that the offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient the phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that would show the close intimacy between the offense charged and the discharge of the accuseds official duties. In the case of People vs. Montejo, it is noteworthy that the phrase committed in connection to his public office does not also appear in the information, which only signifies that the said phrase is not what determine the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accuseds official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to his public office.

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

Q: The offender is a public officer and in committing the crime, he took advantage of his position. Ano yan? Is that a sufficient allegation that the crime is committed in relation to the office? A: NO! It does not carry the same meaning. When you say that the public officer took advantage of his position, that is only an allegation of an aggravating circumstance under Article 14, RPC. (People vs. Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212) Now, there are instances where there could also be a conflict between the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction and that of the regular courts. This is were we follow the general rules on statutory construction that special law prevails over a general law; a specific provision prevails over a general provision. Such principle is applied in the case of De Jesus vs. People (1983), reiterated in the case of Corpuz vs. Tanodbayan (1987). These cases were decided under the 1973 Constitution. But actually, the doctrine still applies now. CORPUZ vs. TANODBAYAN April 15, 1987 NOTE: This Corpuz case was asked in the Bar, not in remedial law but in political law because it has something to do with the COMELEC. FACTS: The accused here is a Comelec registrar who allowed the registration of voters outside of the registration day bawal man yan ba. So there was a violation of the Election Code. He committed a crime in relation to his office. For that, he was charged before the Sandiganbayan under the 1973 Constitution. Now, he challenged the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to try the case and also the jurisdiction of the former Tanodbayan which is now the Ombudsman. Under the Election Code, violations of election code committed by public officers in relation to their office are supposed to be tried by the RTC. It is a direct provision in the code RTC eh! And the preliminary investigation should be conducted by the Comelec under the election code. And of course the prosecution said: No! Under the law, when the crime is committed by a public officer in relation to his office, it should be the Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts. Pero sabi ng accused: Under the election code, it should be the RTC! Ngayon, sino ngayon mag-prevail dyan? HELD: The election code prevails because there is a specific provision which is: crimes under the election code. Whereas the provisions of the Sandiganbayan is broader: crimes committed by public officers in relation to their duty. That applies to public officers in general. So the specific provision prevails over the general provision. Another interesting point about the Sandiganbayan is that the Sandiganbayan law says that where a private individual commits a crime in conspiracy with a public officer, all of them should be tried in the Sandiganbayan. So yung isa, nasabit no? Nasabit yung private individual. He is not even in the government bakit pati siya i-try sa Sandiganbayan? Because may conspiracy. There should be a joint trial. So you cannot say that the public officer should be tried in the Sandiganbayan and the private individual should be tried in the RTC. Di pwede yan. You cannot split the jurisdiction. Q: What is the reason why the private individual should be tried together with the public officers in the Sandiganbayan? A: The SC explained in the following manner: Private persons may be charged together with public officers to avoid repeated and unnecessary presentation of witnesses and exhibits against

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

conspirators in different venues, especially if the issues involved are the same. (Balmadrid vs. Sandiganbayan, March 22, 1991) Lets go to some interesting cases on the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over private individuals: BONDOC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN November 9, 1990 FACTS: This case involves quieting(?) operations (manuevers sa mga tseke) between Central Bank (a government institution, now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) employees allegedly in connivance with Carlito Bondoc, an assistant manager of a private bank. Now, two (2) CB employees were charged with several counts of estafa through falsification of public documents because of their manipulations of the checks. I think what they did maybe something similar to what Estrada did no? Of course they were charged with the Sandiganbayan and the cases were assigned in the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan. Subsequently after further investigation, another information was filed against Bondoc as principal by indispensable cooperation and he was also in conspiracy, so f-in-ile sa Sandiganbayan. His case was raffled to the Third Division. When the Third Division learned that this is related to the case against the two (2) CB employees in the Second Division, pinasa sa 2nd Division for consolidation. However, tapos na pala ang trial dun (2nd Division). So the 2nd Division returned the case of Bondoc to the 3rd Division. So naiwan na si Bondoc. Now he questions the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbyan: How could the Sandiganbayan try me alone when in fact I should be tried jointly with the 2 CB employees. Eh tapos na sila! So my case should be tried in the RTC. HELD: The law requires that the private individuals accused before the Sandiganbayan should be tried together jointly with the public officer. That is really true unless the attendant circumstances have made impossible or impracticable such a joint trial, in which event the trial of said private persons may proceed separately from the public officers or employees whose own trials have been concluded. Besides, there is nothing so sacred or important about a joint trial as to justify a radical deviation from ordinary, orderly court processes in order to have it, or as to affect the very jurisdiction of the Court required to conduct it. The evidence of the State or of the accused does not become weaker or stronger whether presented at a joint or separate trial; the rights of the accused are not enhanced or diluted by the character of a trial as joint or separate; the procedure prescribed in either situation is essentially the same. So joint trial is possible kung pwede pa. Eh kung wala na? Eh di maiwan ka na lang dyan! Now, sabihin mo: No! No! the the law says joint trial! I should not be tried alone. The SC in the case of Bondoc said: Teka muna, do you have an advantage in joint trial? Or when tried alone? Or you are tried together with another person? Does joint trial make your job easier or harder? Makes conviction easier? Wala man bah! Pareho man lang yan! So meaning, you cannot insist on a joint trial if that is no longer feasible. But as far as the law is concerned, since you committed the crime in conspiracy with these public officers, you remain in the Sandiganbayan. So in that case (Bondoc), mag-isa lang siya and his trial continued in the Sandiganbayan. AZARCON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 268 SCRA 747 (February 26, 1997) FACTS: I think this case happened in Bislig. Azarcon here leased a truck of somebody for logging operations. The owner of the truck was a delinquent taxpayer pala. So the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued this warrant of distraint. The BIR looked for the

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

10

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

truck which is quite an item which worthwhile: This truck is hereby considered as under the possession of the BIR. Now since you (Azarcon) are the one leasing, okey lang, ituloy mo but you are now the custodian. You are now holding it in behalf of the BIR. After the lease, he returned the truck to the lessor (taxpayer). Obviously, nawala nga ang truck. So hinabol na si Azarcon ng BIR: Bat mo sinauli? That is under distraint already and that is malversation! Under the RPC, the crime of malversation may be committed by a public officer, by a private individual who is entrusted with the custody of a property which has been levied by the government (Article 222, RPC) So, f-in-ile-an sya ng kaso sa Sandiganbayan malversation eh! He now questions the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: I am not a public officer. If you want to sue me, you sue me in the regular courts, not here in the Sandiganbayan! ISSUE: Does the Sandiganbayan have the jurisdiction over a private individual who is charged with malversation of public funds or property as a principal after the said individual has been designated by the BIR as custodian of a restrained property? Did such accused become a public officer and therefore subject to the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction as a consequence of such designation? HELD: No. The Sandiganbayan does not have the jurisdiction over him. The law equivocally specifies: the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual, i.e. when the complaint charges the private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction. The Information does not charge petitioner Azarcon of being a co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Thus, unless petitioner be proven a public officer, the Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged. Granting arguendo that the petitioner, in signing the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity constituting public functions, he obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. The next logical query is whether petitioner's designation by the BIR as a custodian of distrained property qualifies as appointment by direct provision of law, or by competent authority. We answer in the negative. However, we find no provision in the NIRC constituting such person a public officer by reason of such requirement. The BIR's power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public officer. The prosecution argues that "Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code . . . defines the individuals covered by the term 'officers' under Article 217 . . ." of the same Code. And accordingly, since Azarcon became a "depository of the truck seized by the BIR" he also became a public officer who can be prosecuted under Article 217 . . . We are not persuaded. The language of the foregoing provision is clear. A private individual who has in his charge any of the public funds or property enumerated therein and commits any of the acts defined in any of the provisions of Chapter Four, Title Seven of the RPC, should likewise be penalized with the same penalty meted to erring public officers. Nowhere in this provision is it expressed or implied that a private individual falling under said Article 222 is to be deemed a public officer. What it says is, you can be charged for malversation. Thats all. But he is still a private individual and therefore he cannot be tried alone in the Sandiganbayan. Q: Under the present law, anti-graft or crimes committed by public officers below Grade 27, RTC man yan ba! Now, suppose you are convicted by the RTC, where will you appeal? A: Sandiganbayan. It becomes the appellate court.

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

11

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

Q: Eh halimbawa, MTC? The case is tried by the MTC because the penalty is up to 6 years only. Convicted ka, where will you appeal? A: RTC, in accordance with the judiciary law. Q: From the RTC, convicted pa rin! Where will you appeal? A: Petition for Review before the Sandiganbayan. Do not go to CA. The Sandiganbayan takes the place of the CA. And take note, Sandiganbayan is now given the exclusive original jurisdiction over petition for issuance of writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Ayan! in aid yan ang importante dyan.

editor-in-chief: mortmort editors: jayceebelle balite j-j torres michael peloton maying dadula jessamyn agustin lyle santos paul ryan ongkingco dynn gutierrez maya quitain riezl locsin patrick tabar maritess gonzales maricel culpable kenneth leyva jenny namoc ferdinand vido melissa suarez rayda sullano rucel cayetano rod quiachon hannah examen myra montecalvo genie salvaa grace salesa leo gillesania gemma betonio jenny aquiatan michael pito karen de leon elma tormon judee uy pao angeles jet pascua contributing editors: bathsheba baldoza marlo masangkay

SPACE-FILLER #1:
My First Experience It was dark, the moon was high, We were alone, she and I, Her hair was soft, her eyes were blue, I knew what she wanted me to do, I didn't know how, I just tried my best By putting my hands upon her breast. Her hair was soft, her legs were fine, I ran my fingers down her spine, I remember with fear her beating heart As she started to pull her legs apart. It was dark, there was no light, Something came out, sticky and white, It was full, she had enough, To make it through Up and down, I pushed and pushed. Shes fine, I was not fooled Its done. . . Its through. . . Its all over now. . . My first experience of milking a cow.

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

12