Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition LAW ON JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

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 cri in!" c!ses# 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, aw on !riminal "rocedure, p. #$% Q: Wh!t !re the e"e ents of jurisdiction in cri in!" c!ses$ A: &he following' (. &erritorial jurisdiction) *. Jurisdiction over the subject matter) and +. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused. %irst E"e ent$ TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ,n civil cases, the place is never considered part of jurisdiction. ,t is only a -uestion of venue . that the case should be tried in /anila or 0avao is never considered as jurisdictional. But in criminal procedure, the place where the trial is to be heard is not only a -uestion of venue but also a -uestion of jurisdiction. ,t is called territorial jurisdiction. Q: Define Territori!" 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. (/endoza vs. B.&. !o., 12 "hil. 324% Q: How is territori!" jurisdiction in cri in!" c!ses deter ined# A: &he 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. (5.6. vs. Jueves, *+ "hil. (22% &he area of authority of said court is found in 6ection * of the ,nterim 7ules' Section '& Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts Metro(o"it!n Tri!" Courts) Munici(!" Tri!" Courts) !nd Munici(!" Circuit Tr!i" Courts sh!"" e*ercise their jurisdiction in the cit+) unici(!"it+ or circuit for which the jud,e thereof is !((ointed or desi,n!ted& Thus) ! jud,e !((ointed to the unici(!"it+ or circuiti-ed unici(!"ities wou"d h!.e jurisdiction o.er the s!id ("!ce& /!0 Re,ion!" Tri!" Courts sh!"" e*ercise its jurisdiction within the !re! defined 1+ the Su(re e Court !s the territor+ o.er which the (!rticu"!r 1r!nch concerned sh!"" e*ercise its !uthorit+) in !ccord!nce with Section 23 of 4&5& 4",& 2'6& &here is no problem with the /&!s and /!&!s where the crime is committed there. "ero yung 7&!, it is not really the province because the province can be split into several areas 8 itong 7&! branch na ito, dito ka. 6o it is the limit of its authority as defined by the 6! pursuant to the Judiciary aw . the place or municipality where the particular 7&! branch e9ercises jurisdiction. :very 7&! branch has its own area of responsibility. /eaning, in one province there are many 7&! branches which are scattered. A branch in a particular place will only e9ercise jurisdiction over its designated territory, a small portion, not the whole province. &he territory is defined by the 6!. (6ection (3, B.". Blg. (*1% Second E"e ent$ JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER Q: How is jurisdiction o.er the su1ject !tter in cri in!" c!ses deter ined# A: ,t 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. (5.6. vs. /allari, *4 "hil. +$$) "eople vs. "egarum, #3 "hil. ;(#% (

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

E7AM5LE$ At the time the crime is committed, it was triable by the 7&!, but when the charge was filed in court, it is /&! na because the jurisdiction of the /&! was increased. Q: S!!n !n, sundin n!tin# RTC) which is the "!w !t the ti e the cri e is co !t the ti e the c!se w!s fi"ed# itted# Or MTC) which is the "!w

A: 0un sa /&!. <ou follow the latter. &his is not a -uestion of prejudice, this is purely procedural. =e are not talking here of a retroactive effect of penal law where the law is more favorable to the accused >no? &his is just a -uestion of jurisdiction, not a -uestion of law. 6o, 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 1e ore (recise) how do we 8now where the court h!s or no jurisdiction# A: :ssentially, it is determined by the penalty provided by the law for the offense as that offense is charged in the complaint or information. ("eople vs. "ecson, 1* "hil. (;*) "unzalan vs. "eople, 11 "hil. *1#% Third E"e ent$ JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED Q: How does the court !c9uire jurisdiction o.er the (erson of the !ccused# A: ,t 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. (!hoc vs. @era, $4 "hil. (2$$% JURISDICTION O% 5HILI55INE COURTS et us now go over the jurisdiction of the different courts in the "hilippines. =e will start with the 6upreme !ourt, and then down. 7emember that there are two (*% special courts also authorized to try criminal cases' ((% the Aamily !ourts acting through 7&!s, and (*% the 6andiganbayan. SU5REME COURT /SC0 Q: Wh!t cri in!" c!ses !re within the jurisdiction of the SC# We"") one of the !re c!ses !ffectin, ! 1!ss!dors) (u1"ic inisters !nd consu"s& It is .er+ r!re& 4ut "et us concentr!te on the e*c"usi.e !((e""!te jurisdiction of the SC in cri in!" c!ses& A: &he following' (. *. All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment) Bther 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.

E7AM5LE$ Cannah is the principal, accused of murder. /aying is the accomplice and JJ is the accessory. All of them are found guilty. Aor the principal, sigurado perpetua ang pinakamababa nyan . so 6! kaD Cow about the accomplice? Reclusion Temporal man lang yan baD And the accessory? Prision Mayor. ,n order not to split the jurisdiction, all of them will be appealed to the 6!. +. :ven if the penalty is less than reclusion perpetua, death or life imprisonment, where the issue on appeal is pure -uestion of law.

E7AM5LE' 6uppose the crime is homicide. &he penalty imposed is reclusion temporal . *2 years or less . definitely sa !ourt of Appeals yan. Cowever, if the issue on appeal is purely legal -uestion lang 8 (22E legal, no factual issue . 6! yan. &he mode of appeal is 7ule 4# . Appeal by !etiorari. COURT O% A55EALS /CA0 *

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

etFs go to the !A. 6imple' ,f a case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the 6!, then necessarily it falls within the !AFs jurisdiction. &hat is, the penalty imposed is less than perpetua and the appeal is not purely a -uestion of law) the appeal either involves -uestion of fact or mi9ed -uestion of law and fact. RE:IONAL TRIAL COURT /RTC0 Sec& ';& Jurisdiction in criminal cases. < Re,ion!" Tri!" Courts sh!"" e*ercise e*c"usi.e ori,in!" jurisdiction in !"" cri in!" c!ses not within the e*c"usi.e jurisdiction of !n+ court) tri1un!" or 1od+) e*ce(t those now f!""in, under the e*c"usi.e !nd concurrent jurisdiction of the S!ndi,!n1!+!n which sh!"" here!fter 1e e*c"usi.e"+ t!8en co,ni-!nce of 1+ the "!tter& /45 2'60 &he jurisdiction of the 7&! in criminal cases is provided for in 6ection *2, B" (*1 which is very broad in general . provided it does not belong to the 6andiganbayan or the /unicipal &rial !ourt (/&!%. 6o what does not belong to the 6andiganbayan or the /&! belongs to the 7&!. &herefore, the best guide is determine the jurisdiction of the /&!. et us forget the 6andiganbayan for the meanwhile. ,f it does not belong to the /&!, it should be to the 7&!. MUNICI5AL TRIAL COURT /MTC0 Q: Wh!t "!w ,o.ernin, the jurisdiction of the MTC# A: 6ection +*, B" (*1, as amended by 7A ;$1(. 7A ;$1( is the law e9panding the jurisdiction of the /&! which took effect last April 2#, (114. Sec& ='& Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial courts in criminal cases. < E*ce(t in c!ses f!""in, within the e*c"usi.e ori,in!" jurisdiction of Re,ion!" Tri!" Courts !nd of the S!ndi,!n1!+!n) the Metro(o"it!n Tri!" Courts) Munici(!" Tri!" Courts) !nd Munici(!" Circuit Tri!" Courts sh!"" e*ercise$ 2& E*c"usi.e ori,in!" jurisdiction o.er !"" .io"!tions of cit+ or unici(!" ordin!nces co itted within their res(ecti.e territori!" jurisdiction> !nd '& E*c"usi.e ori,in!" jurisdiction o.er !"" offenses (unish!1"e with i (rison ent of not e*ceedin, si* /?0 +e!rs irres(ecti.e of the ! ount of fine) !nd re,!rd"ess of other i (os!1"e !ccessor+ or other (en!"ties) inc"udin, the ci.i" "i!1i"it+ !risin, fro such offenses or (redic!ted thereon) irres(ecti.e of 8ind) n!ture) .!"ue or ! ount thereof> 5ro.ided) howe.er) Th!t in offense in.o".in, d! !,e to (ro(ert+ throu,h cri in!" ne,"i,ence) the+ sh!"" h!.e e*c"usi.e ori,in!" jurisdiction thereof& /!s ! ended 1+ R&A& @?620 &here are only two (*% things to remember' 1. !. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed wit in t eir respective territorial jurisdiction all offenses punis a"le wit imprisonment of not e#ceedin$ si# %&' years irrespective of t e amount of fine

=hen the prescribed penalty is below si9 ($% years or kung prision correctional and down, puro /&! lahat yan. :verything above si9 ($% years, 7&! ang jurisdiction. Q: Su((ose if the (en!"t+ (rescri1ed is imprisonm n!" #in or $o!%# A: Gever mind the fine and the "ot . Just look at the imprisonment. &hat is the innovation by the new rules. &he fine is never considered in determining the jurisdiction. All you have to do is look at the imprisonment, i.e. above si9 ($% years . 7&!) si9 ($% years and below . /&!. RTC JURISDICTION$ Above si9 ($% years, regardless fine MTC JURISDICTION$ 6i9 ($% years and below, regardless of fine Q: Su((ose the (en!"t+ (rescri1ed 1+ "!w is 2;;A #in # There !re cri es n! w!"!n, i (rison ent eh where the (rescri1ed (en!"t+ is on"+ fine& Wh!t wi"" h!((en# A: 5nder the 6! !ircular 24814, 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 7A ;$1(' it +

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

depends on the amount prescribed by law. 5nder the old law, if the ma9imum fine is "4,222 or less . /&! yan. ,f the penalty prescribed by law is purely fine and above "4,222 . 7&! yan. =here the prescribed by law is purely fine' MTC . "4,222 or less RTC . above "4,222 Cowever, the e*ce(tion to the e*ce(tion 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 7"! and the fine is e-ual to the damage or not more than three (+% times the amount of the damage. E7AM5LE' <ou bumped a car and you wreck it. &he car is worth "(22,222. Ano ang penalty? &he minimum fine is "(22,222 . e-ual to the value of the damage . and the ma9imum is "+22,222 (three times the value of the damage, Article +$#, 7"!%. 6o the fine could range from "(22,222 to "+22,222. Q: S! RTC n! 1! +!n 1ec!use it is !1o.e 5B);;;# A: GoD Basta damage to property through reckless imprudence, automatically it is the /&! regardless of the amount of fine. &he P(,))) is only for crimes other than damage to property through reckless imprudence. Butline of the jurisdiction of the /&! and 7&! over criminal cases' RTC' (. when the prescribed penalty for the offense is imprisonment e9ceeding si9 ($% years irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine) when the prescribed penalty for the offense is fine only and the imposable fine e9ceeds "4,222.

*. MTC' (. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction) *. all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not e9ceeding si9 ($% years irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine) +. when the prescribed penalty is fine only and the imposable amount does not e9ceed "4,222) 4. when the offense involves damage to property through criminal negligence irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine. &ake 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. 5nder the old jurisprudence in the old case of *.+. vs. ,ernardo, the 6! ruled that the penalty for simple seduction is only arresto mayor Hnot more than $ monthsI. ,t cannot be tried by the old /&!. ,t should only be tried by the !A, (now, 7&!% because under Article +4# of the 7"!, 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 !A,. 6o what determines the jurisdiction of the court is not the criminal penalty by the civil liability. "ero bahaw na yanDD &hose pronouncements are already obsolete. Gow, never mind the civil liability. 6o, in simple seduction Hbelow $ monthsI, the /&! can order for the support and acknowledgment of the child because that is only incidental. =hat is important is si9 ($% months lang ang penalty. CASE' 6uppose 6ir Jet is convicted of less serious physical injuries for the $th time within a period of (2 years only. &he penalty for such crime is only arresto mayor . si9 ($% months ma9imum. But since 6ir Jet is already a habitual delin-uent, may patong na yan where the penalty can reach as high as $ months to (4 years and 3 months. Q: Where !re +ou ,oin, to fi"e the c!se# A: &hat is what happened in the case of People vs. Custoso where the 6! held that the case should be filed in the 7&! because you consider the principal plus the additional penalty. But this doctrine is already obsolete. 5nder the present law 7A ;$1(, we do not consider the additional penalty, only the principal penalty. 6ince less serious physical injuries is punishable by arresto mayor only, it should be filed in the /&!. &ake note the opening clause of 6ection +*' -#cept in cases fallin$ wit in t e e#clusive ori$inal jurisdiction of Re$ional Trial Courts and of t e +andi$an"ayan. ,n other words, if the crime has a penalty of si9 ($% years or lower, dapat talaga 4

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

/&!. ,t cannot be tried by the /&! if the law says it is falling within the e9clusive original jurisdiction of the 7&! or the 6andiganbayan Hif t e law itself baDI. ,f the law says this case shall be tried with the 7&!, sundin mo yan and never mind the penalty because the law specifically provides in what court you should file it. :ven if the penalty is one ((% month imprisonment, pag8sinabi ng law J7&!K, you follow it. Q: :i.e inst!nces of this e*ce(tion& In wh!t c!ses wi"" the RTC wi"" tr+ the c!se e.en if the (en!"t+ is on"+ si* /?0 +e!rs or "ess# A: &here are four (4% instances as laid down by the 6! in cases of M.RA/-+ 0+. CA, *3+ 6!7A *(( ((11;% and C.M-/-C vs. 12.31A3 , *1* 6!7A *#4 ((113%' (. *. +. 4. /i"el . Llaro sa Article +$2, 7"! na 7&!, pero if you look at the penalty for libel, hindi man makaabot ng si9 ($% years baD Article +$2 prevails. T e 4ecree on 5ntellectual Property . !riminal cases for the violation of the 0ecree on ,ntellectual "roperty . mga trademarks yan. T e 4an$erous 4ru$s Act. Basta 0angerous 0rugs, automatic 7&! yan even if the penalty is prision correcional lang. 0iolation of t e .mni"us -lection Code . !riminal cases arising from the violations of the Bmnibus :lection !ode is with the 7&! even if the penalty is below si9 ($% years and one ((% day (!omelec vs. Ghoynay% %AMILC COURTS Q: Wh!t cri in!" c!ses !re f!""in, within the ori,in!" jurisdiction of the %! i"+ Courts under RA 3=?6 D An Act Est!1"ishin, %! i"+ Courts# A: &he following under 6ection #, 7A 3+$1' (. !riminal cases where one or more of the accused is below (3 years of age but not less than nine (1% years of age, or one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. 6o for e9ample' (2 years old na bata, sinuntok mo . slight physical injuries . sa Aamily !ourts yan. Cindi yan pwede sa /&! because regardless of the penalty basta below (3 years old siya, Aamily !ourts yan whether he is the accused or the offended party. *. +. !riminal cases against minors under the 0angerous 0rugs Act) and @iolations of 7A ;$(2 . the famous child Abuse aw . as amended by 7A ;$#3.

But since the Aamily !ourts have not yet been constituted, the temporary measure is some 7&! branches were designated as acting as Aamily !ourts. Cere in 0avao, the salas of Judge Breva and Judge Archangel are designated as Aamily !ourts. &emporary set8up lang yan. &hey are still 7&! but acting as Aamily !ourts. SANDI:AN4ACAN &he most confusing is the jurisdiction of the 6andiganbayan. :veryone is always confused with this 6andiganbayan. ,t is the most controversial. Cow do you know that the case is to be tried by the 6andiganbayan or by the regular courts? ,t does not mean naman that all crimes committed by a public officer must be with the 6andiganbayan. ,t could be with the 6andiganbayan or it could be with the 7&! or /&!. ,f you know the jurisdiction of the 7&! or /&!, there is no problem. Above si9 ($% years . 7&!) below si9 ($% years . /&!. But the problem is whether it is with the 6andiganbayan or the regular courts, because for the 6andiganbayan, doon, regardless of the penalty na naman. :ven if the penalty is above si9 ($% years or si9 ($% years and below, if it is triable before the 6andiganbayan, you go there. Aorget the penalty. &hat is where there is some confusion. /araming naguguluhanD #

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition Q: Wh!t is the ,uide"ine in deter inin, the jurisdiction of the S!ndi,!n1!+!n# A: &he latest governing law is 7A 3*41 approved on Aebruary 2#, (11;. &his is what it re-uires' (. *. =hat kind of position in t he government does he hold or occupy? =hat criminal case was committed by him?

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

&HAT 'IND OF POSITION IN THE (OVERNMENT DOES HE HOLD OR OCCUP)* 6ino ba itong taong ito? . if he is a governor, vice8governor, 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, "hilippine army and air force, colonels and naval captains and all officers of higher rank, officers of the "G" while occupying the position of provincial directors and those holding the rank of 6enior 6uperintendent or higher, city and provincial prosecutors and their assistant, and officials and prosecutors of the Bffice of the Bmbudsman and special prosecutor, presidents, directors or trustees or managers of MB!!s, state universities or educational institutions or foundations) members of !ongress) members of the !onstitutional !ommission without prejudice to the provisions of the !onstitution) Hito an$ pina6ama$anda:I all other national and local officials classified as Mrade *; and higher. &hose specified positions or even if you are just an ordinary employee but you are Mrade *; or higher coupled with Anti8 Mraft crime or crime committed in relation to your office . 6andiganbayan yan, forget the penalty. ,f he is below Mrade *; and the crime is anti8graft or a crime committed in relation to his office, then it is not 6andiganbayan. ,t is either 7&! or /&!. &ingnan mo lang ang Mrade. &hat is the cue. /adali man lang ba' you just correlate the nature of the crime and the nature of the position. &HAT CRIMINAL CASE &AS COMMITTED B) HIM* =hen it comes to criminal cases, dalawa (*% lang yan eh' Anti8Mraft cases or violation of 7A (+;1 HAorfeiture of an illegally ac-uired propertyI. But more or less Anti8Mraft would be a better e9ample since anyway majority of the cases falls there. Q: How !1out those in the R5C# A: Aind out whether the crime was committed by the public officer in relation to his office. <an muna ang babantayan mo. ,f it is outside of those two Hanti8graft or not anti8graft but the crime is committed in relation to his officeI, wala na, forget the 6andiganbayan. =hat do you mean by Jcrime committed in relation to t e office of t e person accused7 ? ,n the case of 5EO5LE vs. MONTEJO 2;3 5hi"& ?E' %ACTS' &his is a case for murder filed against the former /ayor eroy Brown of Basilan !ity together with some Basilan policeman. Brown ordered his men to arrest the suspect and he was interrogated. ,t is in the course of the investigation or interrogation that they committed the crime of murder. ISSUE' =as the crime of murder committed in relation to his office? HELD' <es. ,n other words, if they were not public officers they would not have succeeded in committing the crime. JAlthough 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. ,ndeed, they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have $

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices. &he co8defendants of respondent eroy 6. Brown, obeyed his instructions because he was their superior officer, as /ayor of Basilan !ity.K Bf course, normally when you say in relation to is office N mga falsification or malversatonN yan, talagang klaro. &hat is the normal meaning. &hat is why in the (11# case of C*1A1A1 0+. ARC-., *4* 6!7A, the 6! held that an offense may be considered as committed in relation to the accusedOs office if the offense cannot e9ist without the office such that the office is a constituent element of the crime. et us try to compare this in the case of SANCHEF vs. DEMETRIOU ';@ SCRA ?'@ %ACTS' /ayor 6anchez of !alauan was charged with rape and homicide for the deaths of Aileen 6armenta and Allan Momez. &hey were charged before the 7&!. 6anchez -uestioned the jurisdiction of the 7&! that since he is an incumbent mayor at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, his case should be tried before the 6andiganbayan. ISSUE' =hether or not the 7&! has jurisdiction over the case. HELD' <es. &he case should be tried by the 7&! and not 6andiganbayan. &he case of 6anchez was not considered in relation to their office. J&here is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and 6anchezF office as municipal mayor because public office is not an essential element of the crime charged. &he offense can stand independently of the office. /oreover, it is not even alleged in the information that the commission of the crime charged was intimately connected with the performance of 6anchezF official functions to make it fall under the e9ception laid down in People vs. Montejo.K J,n 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 degreeF investigation held at a police substation. &he 6upreme !ourt 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.F ,ndeed, they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices. J=e have read the informations in the case at bar and find no allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to 6anchez was connected with the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor or that there is an >intimate connectionF between the offense and his office. ,t follows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the 6andiganbayan.K LACSON vs. E7ECUTIGE SECRETARC =;2 SCRA '63 /26660 HELD' ,t is not enough to say that the crime committed is in relation to his office. <ou must make specific allegations to show really the connection. Btherwise, it will not be tried by the 6andiganbayan but by the regular courts. J=hile the information states that the above8name principal accused committed the crime of murder >in relation to their public officeF there is, however, no specific alle$ation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. ikewise, the amended information does not indicate that the accused arrested and investigated the innocent victim and killed the latter while in their custody.K 0apat' nahuliNnag8imbestigaNtapos, pinatay . yun, ma8consider paD "ero pag8sinabi mo na they killed him in relation to their office, without further e9planation . walaD ,t becomes merely a conclusion lang ba. J&he mere allegation in the information that the offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient . the phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that would show the close intimacy between the offense charged and the discharge of the accusedFs official duties.K J,n the case of People vs. Montejo, it is noteworthy that the phrase >committed in connection to his public officeF does not also appear in the information, which only signifies that the said phrase is not what determine the jurisdiction of 6andiganbayan. =hat is controllin$ is the specific factual allegations in the ;

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accusedFs official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to -ualify the crime as having been committed in relation to his public office.K 8: &he offender is a public officer and in committing the crime, he took advantage of his position. Ano yan? ,s that a sufficient allegation that the crime is committed in relation to the office? A: GBD ,t does not carry the same meaning. =hen you say that the public officer too6 advanta$e of is position , that is only an allegation of an aggravating circumstance under Article (4, 7"!. ("eople vs. /agallanes, *41 6!7A *(*% Gow, there are instances where there could also be a conflict between the 6andiganbayan jurisdiction and that of the regular courts. &his is were we follow the general rules on statutory construction t at special law prevails over a general law) a specific provision prevails over a general provision. 6uch principle is applied in the case of 4e Jesus vs. People ((13+%, reiterated in the case of Corpu9 vs. Tanod"ayan ((13;%. &hese cases were decided under the (1;+ !onstitution. But actually, the doctrine still applies now. COR5UF vs. TANOD4ACAN A(ri" 2E) 263@ NOTE' &his Corpu9 case was asked in the Bar, not in remedial law but in political law because it has something to do with the !B/: :!. %ACTS' &he accused here is a !omelec registrar who allowed the registration of voters outside of the registration dayN bawal man yan ba. 6o there was a violation of the :lection !ode. Ce committed a crime in relation to his office. Aor that, he was charged before the 6andiganbayan under the (1;+ !onstitution. Gow, he challenged the jurisdiction of the 6andiganbayan to try the case and also the jurisdiction of the former &anodbayan which is now the Bmbudsman. 5nder the :lection !ode, violations of election code committed by public officers in relation to their office are supposed to be tried by the 7&!. ,t is a direct provision in the code . 7&! ehD And the preliminary investigation should be conducted by the !omelec under the election code. And of course the prosecution said' JGoD 5nder the law, when the crime is committed by a public officer in relation to his office, it should be the 6andiganbayan, not the regular courts.K "ero sabi ng accused' J5nder the election code, it should be the 7&!DK Ggayon, sino ngayon mag8prevail dyan? HELD: &he election code prevails because there is a specific provision which is' crimes under t e election code. =hereas the provisions of the 6andiganbayan is broader' crimes committed "y pu"lic officers in relation to t eir duty. &hat applies to public officers in general. 6o the specific provision prevails over the general provision. Another interesting point about the 6andiganbayan is that the 6andiganbayan law says that where a private individual commits a crime in conspiracy with a public officer, all of them should be tried in the 6andiganbayan. 6o >yung isa, nasabit no? Gasabit yung private individual. Ce is not even in the government bakit pati siya i8try sa 6andiganbayan? Because may conspiracy. &here should be a joint trial. 6o you cannot say that the public officer should be tried in the 6andiganbayan and the private individual should be tried in the 7&!. 0i pwede yan. <ou cannot split the jurisdiction. Q: Wh!t is the re!son wh+ the (ri.!te indi.idu!" shou"d 1e tried to,ether with the (u1"ic officers in the S!ndi,!n1!+!n# A: &he 6! e9plained in the following manner' J"rivate persons may be charged together with public officers to avoid repeated and unnecessary presentation of witnesses and e9hibits against conspirators in different venues, especially if the issues involved are the same.K %,almadrid vs. +andi$an"ayan, /arch **, (11(% etFs go to some interesting cases on the jurisdiction of the 6andiganbayan over private individuals'

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition 4ONDOC +s. SANDI:AN4ACAN No.e 1er 6) 266;

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

%ACTS' &his case involves :uietin$%;' operations (manuevers sa mga tseke% between !entral Bank (a government institution, now Bangko 6entral ng "ilipinas% employees allegedly in connivance with !arlito Bondoc, an assistant manager of a private bank. Gow, two (*% !B employees were charged with several counts of estafa through falsification of public documents because of their manipulations of the checks. , think what they did maybe something similar to what :strada did no? Bf course they were charged with the 6andiganbayan and the cases were assigned in the 6econd 0ivision of the 6andiganbayan. 6ubse-uently after further investigation, another information was filed against Bondoc as principal by indispensable cooperation and he was also in conspiracy, so f8in8ile sa 6andiganbayan. Cis case was raffled to the &hird 0ivision. =hen the &hird 0ivision learned that this is related to the case against the two (*% !B employees in the 6econd 0ivision, pinasa sa *nd 0ivision for consolidation. Cowever, tapos na pala ang trial dun (*nd 0ivision%. 6o the *nd 0ivision returned the case of Bondoc to the +rd 0ivision. 6o naiwan na si Bondoc. Gow he -uestions the jurisdiction of the 6andiganbyan' Cow could the 6andiganbayan try me alone when in fact , should be tried jointly with the * !B employees. :h tapos na silaD 6o my case should be tried in the 7&!. HELD' J&he law re-uires that the private individuals accused before the 6andiganbayan should be tried together jointly with the public officer. &hat 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.K JBesides, 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 !ourt re-uired to conduct it. &he evidence of the 6tate 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.K 6o joint trial is possible kung pwede pa. :h kung wala na? :h di maiwan ka na lang dyanD Gow, sabihin mo' <1o= 1o= t e t e law says >joint trial=? 5 s ould not "e tried alone.7 &he 6! in the case of ,ondoc said' &eka muna, do you have an advantage in joint trial? Br when tried alone? Br you are tried together with another person? 0oes joint trial make your job easier or harder? /akes conviction easier? =ala man bahD "areho man lang yanD 6o 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 6andiganbayan. 6o in that case (,ondoc%, mag8isa lang siya and his trial continued in the 6andiganbayan. AFARCON vs. SANDI:AN4ACAN '?3 SCRA @B@ /%e1ru!r+ '?) 266@0 %ACTS' , think this case happened in Bislig. Azarcon here leased a truck of somebody for logging operations. &he owner of the truck was a delin-uent ta9payer pala. 6o the Bureau of ,nternal 7evenue (B,7% issued this warrant of distraint. &he B,7 looked for the truck which is -uite an item which worthwhile' <T is truc6 is ere"y considered as under t e possession of t e ,5R. 1ow since you %A9arcon' are t e one leasin$, o6ey lan$, ituloy mo "ut you are now t e custodian. 3ou are now oldin$ it in "e alf of t e ,5R.7 After the lease, he returned the truck to the lessor (ta9payer%. Bbviously, nawala nga ang truck. 6o hinabol na si Azarcon ng B,7' <,a?t mo sinauli; T at is under distraint already and t at is malversation=7 5nder the 7"!, 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 ***, 7"!%K 6o, f8in8ile8an sya ng kaso sa 6andiganbayanN malversation ehD Ce now -uestions the jurisdiction of the 6andiganbayan' 5 am not a pu"lic officer. 5f you want to sue me, you sue me in t e re$ular courts, not ere in t e +andi$an"ayan= 1

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

ISSUE' 0oes the 6andiganbayan 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 B,7 as custodian of a restrained property? 0id such accused become a public officer and therefore subject to the 6andiganbayan jurisdiction as a conse-uence of such designation? HELD' Go. &he 6andiganbayan does not have the jurisdiction over him. &he law e-uivocally specifies' JNthe only instances when the 6andiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual, i.e. when the complaint charges the private individual either as a co8principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction. &he ,nformation does not charge petitioner Azarcon of being a co8principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the 6andiganbayanOs jurisdiction. &hus, unless petitioner be proven a public officer, the 6andiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged. JMranting ar$uendo that the petitioner, in signing the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the B,7, commenced to take part in an activity constituting public functions, he obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. &he ne9t logical -uery is whether petitionerOs designation by the B,7 as a custodian of distrained property -ualifies as appointment by direct provision of law, or by competent authority. =e answer in the negative. JCowever, we find no provision in the G,7! constituting such person a public officer by reason of such re-uirement. &he B,7Os power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public officer. &he prosecution argues that PArticle *** of the 7evised "enal !ode . . . defines the individuals covered by the term OofficersO under Article *(; . . .P of the same !ode. And accordingly, since Azarcon became a Pdepository of the truck seized by the B,7P he also became a public officer who can be prosecuted under Article *(; . . .K J=e are not persuaded. &he 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 !hapter Aour, &itle 6even of the 7"!, should likewise be penalized with the same penalty meted to erring public officers. Gowhere in this provision is it e9pressed or implied that a private individual falling under said Article *** is to be deemed a public officer.K =hat it says is, you can be charged for malversation. &hatFs all. But he is still a private individual and therefore he cannot be tried alone in the 6andiganbayan. Q: Under the (resent "!w) !nti<,r!ft or cri es co itted 1+ (u1"ic officers 1e"ow :r!de '@) RTC Now) su((ose +ou !re con.icted 1+ the RTC) where wi"" +ou !((e!"# A: 6andiganbayan. ,t becomes the appellate court. !n +!n 1!H

Q: Eh h!"i 1!w!) MTC# The c!se is tried 1+ the MTC 1ec!use the (en!"t+ is u( to ? +e!rs on"+& Con.icted 8!) where wi"" +ou !((e!"# A: 7&!, in accordance with the judiciary law. Q: %ro the RTC) con.icted (! rinH Where wi"" +ou !((e!"# A: "etition for 7eview before the 6andiganbayan. 0o not go to !A. &he 6andiganbayan takes the place of the !A. And take note, 6andiganbayan is now given the e9clusive original jurisdiction over petition for issuance of writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other au9iliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. AyanD Jin aidKN yan ang importante dyan.

(2