PRELIMINARY CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure is the method prescribed by
law for the
apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of
any criminal
offense, and for their punishment, in case of
conviction.
Criminal procedure is concerned with the
procedural steps
through which a criminal case passes,
commencing with the
initial investigation of a crime and
concluding with the
unconditional release of the offender.
It is a generic term used to describe the network of
laws and
rules which govern the procedural
administration of criminal
justice, e.g., laws and court rules (e.g..
Rules of Criminal
Procedure) governing arrest, search and seizure,
bail, etc.
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. The Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure.
2. General Orders No. 58, dated April 23, 1900.
3. Amendatory Acts passed by the Philippine
Commission.
4. The various quasi acts, the Philippine Bill of
1902, the Jones
Law of 1916, the Tydings-McDuffie Law and the
Constitution
of the Philippines.
5. The Rules of Court of 1940 and the 1964, 1985 and
1988
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
6. Various Republic Acts, e.g., R.A. No. 240; New
Rule 127,
providing for attachment; R.A. No. 296,
Judiciary Act of
1948 denning criminal jurisdiction, and B.P.
Big. 129 as
amended by R.A. No. 7691; R.A. No. 8249,
Creating the
Sandiganbayan; R.A. No. 8349, The Speedy Trial
Act of
7. Presidential Decrees, e.g., P.D. No. 911; R.A.
No. 732, regu-
lating the authority of Prosecuting Fiscals to
Conduct
Preliminary Investigation.
8. Constitution Rights of an Accused under Article
III.
9. The Civil Code. (Arts. 32, 33 and 34)
10. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting
our laws which
form part of our legal system.
11. R.A. No. 8493, The Speedy Trial Act of 1998.
13. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
THREE SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. Inquisitorial. The detection and prosecution of
offenders
are not left to the initiative of private parties
but to the
officials and agents of the law.
Resort is made to secret inquiry to discover the
culprit and
violence and torture were often employed to
extract a
confession.
The Judge was not limited to the evidence brought
before
him but could proceed with his own inquiry which was
not
confrontative.
2. Accusatorial. The accusation is exercised
by every
citizen or by a member of the group to which the
injured
party belongs.
As the action is a combat between the parties, the
supposed
offender has the right to be confronted by his
accuser.
The battle in the form of a public trial is
judged by a
magistrate who renders the verdict.
3. The Mixed System. This is a combination
of the
inquisitorial and the accusatorial systems.
Thus, the examination of defendants and other
persons
before the filing of the complaint or information
may be
inquisitorial.
This is particularly true in the Preliminary
examination, for
the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest.
Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a
criminal
action may be instituted by complaint of the offended
party
or by information filed by the Fiscal and once the
criminal
action is filed in court, the accused has the right
to confront
and cross-examine his accuser.
It has, however, been held that:
"As a general rule, a court proceeding in
our judicial set-up is
accusatorial or adversary and not inquisitorial in
nature. It contem-
plates two contending parties before the court
which hears them
impartially and renders judgment only after trial."
4
IMPORTANCE OF DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL CASES
"All trial courts, the Sandiganbayan included, are
reminded that
they should take all the necessary measures
guaranteeing
procedural due process from the inception of
custodial
investigation up to rendition of judgment.
They are not to turn a blind eye to
procedural irregularities
which transpired before the criminal case reached the
court.
The validity and sufficiency of the information are
important."
"Criminal due process requires that the
accused must be proceeded
against under the orderly processes of law. In all
criminal cases, the judge
should follow the step-by-step procedure required by
the rules.
The reason for this is to assure that the State makes
no mistake in taking
the life or liberty except that of the guilty."
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS
"CRIMINAL JURISDICTION"
is the authority to hear and try a particular offense
and impose
the punishment for it.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court
is determined
by:
(1) the geographical limits of the territory
over which it
presides, and
(2) the actions (civil and criminal), it is empowered
to hear
and decide.
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
The elements of jurisdiction of a trial court
over the subject
matter in a criminal case are:
a. The nature of the offense and/or penalty attached
thereto;
and
b. The fact that the offense has been committed
within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
The non-concurrence of either of these two
elements may be
challenged by an accused at any stage of the
proceedings in the
court below or on appeal.
Failing in one of them, a judgment of conviction is
null and void.
REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION
Three important requisites must be present before a
court can
validly exercise its power to hear and try a case:
a. It must have jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
b. It must have jurisdiction over the
territory where the
offense was committed;
c. It must have jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER is the power to
hear and determine cases of the general class
to which the proceedings in question belong.
8
JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW
The Philippine Courts have no common law jurisdiction
or power,
but only those expressly conferred by the
Constitution and
statutes and those necessarily implied to make
the express
powers effective.
STATUTE IN FORCE AT COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS
DETERMINES JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
the statute
in force at the time of the commencement of the
action and not
at the time of its commission even if the penalty
that may be
imposed at the time of its commission is less and
does not fall
under the court's jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or
by-law.
It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can
it be acquired
or diminished by any act of the parties.
In determining whether a case lies within or
outside the
jurisdiction of a court, reference to the applicable
statute on the
matter is indispensable.
It is a settled rule that jurisdiction of a court is
determined by
the statute in force at the time of commencement of
action.
The principle, however, is different, where
jurisdiction is
dependent on the nature of the position of the
accused at the
time of the commission of the offense.
In Subido v. Sandiganbayan, jurisdiction was
determined by the position
of the accused at the time of the commission of the
offense.
The crime of arbitrary detention was allegedly
committed on June 25,
1992 when accused was a Commissioner of the BID. R.A.
No. 7975 took
effect on May 6,1995 vesting the Sandiganbayan
with exclusive
jurisdiction for crimes committed by public officers
corresponding to Grade
27.
The information was filed on 28 July 1995 when
accused was already a
private citizen. He claimed that under the
law at the time of the
commencement of the action, the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over
him for the offense charged.
HELD: Republic Act No. 7975 (amended by R.A. No.
8249) as regards the
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, mode of appeal
and other proce- dural
matters, was held as a procedural law and
may validly be given
retroactive effect, there being no impairment of
contractual or vested
rights.
It was held that the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over an anti-graft
case allegedly committed by public officers who at
the time of the filing of
the information falls below Grade 27.
JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS OF
COMPLAINT
The averments in the complaint or information
characterizes the
crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it
must be
tried.
In order to determine the jurisdiction of the
court in criminal
cases, the complaint must be examined for the
purpose of
ascertaining whether or not the facts set out
therein and the
punishment provided for by law for such facts
fall within the
jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is
filed.
The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is
determined by the
allegations of the complaint or information
and not by the
findings the court may make after the trial.
PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION
a. The general rule is that the jurisdiction
of a court is
determined by: (1) the geographical limits of the
territory
over which it presides, and (2) the action (civil and
criminal)
it is empowered to hear and decide.
b. As the question of jurisdiction is always of
importance, if the
prosecution fails to prove that fact, the court
may always
permit it to present additional evidence to show the
fact that
the crime was committed within its jurisdiction.
c. The filing of a complaint or information in Court
initiates a
criminal action.
The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the
case, which
is the authority to hear and determine the case.
When after the filing of the complaint or
information a
warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by
the trial
court and the accused either voluntarily submitted
himself
to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court
thereby
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
d. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of
an action is
fatal and an objection based upon this ground
may be
interposed at any stage of the proceedings.
Jurisdiction is conferred only by the
sovereign authority
which organizes the courts.
When jurisdiction over an offense has not been
conferred by
law, the accused cannot confer it by express
waiver or otherwise.
Jurisdiction over criminal cases cannot be
conferred by
consent.
Even if a party fails to file a motion to quash, he
may still
question the jurisdiction of the court later on.
Moreover, these objections may be raised or
considered
motu proprio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or
on appeal.
e. If under the law the court has no
jurisdiction over the
subject matter, it cannot take cognizance of
the case,
notwithstanding the silence or acquiescence of the
accused.
The exception is when there is estoppel by laches to
bar
attacks on jurisdiction.
f. Estoppel by Laches to Question Jurisdiction
in Criminal
Cases
Generally, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply as
against
the people in criminal prosecutions.
The principle, however, earlier laid down in
the case of
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
'' which bars a party from attacking
the jurisdiction of the court by reason of estoppel
by laches
have been extended to criminal cases.
See, however, Fuzume v. Court of'Appeals,
holding that
accused or the court may motu proprio raise
lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal
case for the
first time on Appeal.
Immunity from suit is a jurisdictional question.
g. Principle that there is no estoppel against State
The settled rule is that the State is not estopped
by the
mistakes of its officers and employees. Indeed, in
Cruz, Jr.
v. Court of Appeals, the Court declared:
. . . Estoppel does not lie against the
government because of the
supposedly mistaken acts or omissions of its agents.
As we declared in People v. Castaneda, "there is
the long familiar
rule that erroneous application and enforcement of
the law by public
officers do not block subsequent correct
application of the statute
and that the government is never estopped by mistake
or error on
the part of its agents."
The Court also held in Chua v. Court of Appeals:
. . . While ordinarily, certiorari is unavailing
where the appeal period
has lapsed, there are exceptions. Among them are:
(a) when public welfare and the advancement of
public policy
dictates;
(b) when the broader interest of justice so requires;
(c) when the writs issued are null and void; or
(d) when the questioned order amounts to an
oppressive exercise
of judicial authority... .
h. A conviction or acquittal before a court
having no
jurisdiction is, like all proceedings in the case,
absolutely
void, and is therefore no bar to subsequent
indictment and
trial in a court which has jurisdiction of the
offense.