Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

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 diferent courts
before we take up the provisions.
Q: How do we defne jurisdiction with reference to criminal cases?
A: Jurisdiction in criminal cases has been defned as the power and authority of a court
to take coni!ance of an ofense and to pronounce the judement or sentence provided by
law after a trial in the manner prescribed. "#lbert, $aw on %riminal &rocedure, p. '()
Q: *hat are the elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases+
A: ,he followin+
-. ,erritorial jurisdiction.
/. Jurisdiction over the subject matter. and
0. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
1irst 2lement+ TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
3n civil cases, the place is never considered part of jurisdiction. 3t is only a 4uestion of
venue 5 that the case should be tried in 6anila or 7avao is never considered as
jurisdictional. But in criminal procedure, the place where the trial is to be heard is not only
a 4uestion of venue but also a 4uestion of jurisdiction. 3t is called territorial jurisdiction.
Q: 7efne ,erritorial Jurisdiction.
A: Territorial jurisdiction refers to the limits of the eoraphical boundaries of a place
within which a court has jurisdiction to act judicially and outside of which its judicial acts
are null and void. "6endo!a vs. B.,. %o., 89 &hil. :9;)
Q: How is territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases determined?
A: ,he territorial jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the
eoraphical area over which it presides, and the fact that the crime was committed, or
any of its essential inredients took place, within said area is an element of jurisdiction.
"<.=. vs. Jueves, /0 &hil. -99)
,he area of authority of said court is found in =ection / of the 3nterim >ules+
Section 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trail Courts shall exercise their
jurisdiction in the cit, municipalit or circuit !or which the jud"e thereo! is
appointed or desi"nated. Thus, a jud"e appointed to the municipalit or
circuiti#ed municipalities would have jurisdiction over the said place.
$a% Re"ional Trial Courts shall exercise its jurisdiction within the area
de!ined & the Supreme Court as the territor over which the particular &ranch
concerned shall exercise its authorit, in accordance with Section '( o! ).P.
)l". '2*.
,here is no problem with the 6,%s and 6%,%s where the crime is committed there.
&ero yun >,%, it is not really the province because the province can be split into several
areas ? iton >,% branch na ito, dito ka. =o it is the limit of its authority as defned by the
=% pursuant to the Judiciary $aw 5 the place or municipality where the particular >,%
branch e@ercises jurisdiction. 2very >,% branch has its own area of responsibility.
6eanin, in one province there are many >,% branches which are scattered. # branch
in a particular place will only e@ercise jurisdiction over its desinated territory, a small
portion, not the whole province. ,he territory is defned by the =%. "=ection -:, B.&. Bl.
-/8)
=econd 2lement+ JURISDICTION OVER THE SUJECT !ATTER
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter in criminal cases determined?
A: 3t is determined by the alleations 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 ofense. "<.=. vs. 6allari, /; &hil. 0((. &eople vs. &earum, ': &hil.
A-')
EXAMPLE: #t the time the crime is committed, it was triable by the >,%, but when the
chare was fled in court, it is 6,% na because the jurisdiction of the 6,% was increased.
Q: =aan an sundin natin? >,%, which is the law at the time the crime is committed?
Br 6,%, which is the law at the time the case was fled?
A: 7un sa 6,%. Cou follow the latter. ,his is not a 4uestion of prejudice, this is purely
procedural. *e are not talkin here of a retroactive efect of penal law where the law is
more favorable to the accused Dno? ,his is just a 4uestion of jurisdiction, not a 4uestion of
law. =o, it is the law in force at the time of the flin of the action is what determines the
jurisdiction of the court.
Q: ,o be more precise, how do we know where the court has or no jurisdiction?
A: 2ssentially, it is determined by the penalty provided by the law for the ofense as
that ofense is chared in the complaint or information. "&eople vs. &ecson, 8/ &hil. -A/.
&un!alan vs. &eople, 88 &hil. /8')
,hird 2lement+ JURISDICTION OVER THE "ERSON O# THE ACCUSED
Q: How does the court ac4uire jurisdiction over the person of the accused?
A: 3t is conferred upon the court either by the voluntary appearance or surrender of the
accused, or by his arrest to answer for the crime chared. "%hoc vs. Eera, (; &hil. -9(()
JURISDICTIO O! P"ILIPPIE COURTS
$et us now o over the jurisdiction of the diferent courts in the &hilippines. *e will
start with the =upreme %ourt, and then down. >emember that there are two "/) s$ecial
courts also authori!ed to try criminal cases+ "-) the 1amily %ourts actin throuh >,%s, and
"/) the =andianbayan.
SUPREME COURT #SC$
Q: *hat criminal cases are within the jurisdiction of the =%? *ell, one of them are
cases afectin ambassadors, public ministers and consuls. 3t is very rare. But let us
concentrate on the e@clusive appellate jurisdiction of the =% in criminal cases.
A: ,he followin+
-. #ll criminal cases involvin ofenses for which the penalty imposed by the trial
court is death, reclusion $er$etua or life imprisonment.
/. Bther ofenses which, althouh not so punished, arose out of the same
occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same
occasion as that ivin rise to the more serious ofense, reardless of whether the
accused are chared as principals, accomplices, or accessories, or whether they
have been tried jointly or separately.
EXAMPLE: Hannah is the principal, accused of murder. 6ayin is the accomplice
and JJ is the accessory. #ll of them are found uilty. 1or the principal, siurado
$er$etua an pinakamababa nyan 5 so =% kaF
How about the accomplice? Reclusion Te%$oral man lan yan baF #nd the
accessory? "rision !a&or. 3n order not to split the jurisdiction, all of them will be
appealed to the =%.
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
2
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
0. 2ven if the penalty is less than reclusion $er$etua, death or life imprisonment,
where the issue on appeal is pure 4uestion of law.
EXAMPLE+ =uppose the crime is homicide. ,he penalty imposed is reclusion
te%$oral 5 /9 years or less 5 defnitely sa %ourt of #ppeals yan. However, if the
issue on appeal is purely leal 4uestion lan ? -99G leal, no factual issue 5 =% yan.
,he mode of appeal is >ule ;' 5 #ppeal by %etiorari.
COURT O! APPEALS #CA$
$etHs o to the %#. =imple+ 3f a case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the =%, then
necessarily it falls within the %#Hs jurisdiction. ,hat is, the penalty imposed is less than
$er$etua and the appeal is not purely a 4uestion of law. the appeal either involves
4uestion of fact or mi@ed 4uestion of law and fact.
RE%IOAL TRIAL COURT #RTC$
Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. + Re"ional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive ori"inal jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction o! an court, tri&unal or &od, except those now !allin"
under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction o! the Sandi"an&aan which shall
herea!ter &e exclusivel ta,en co"ni#ance o! & the latter. $)P '2*%
,he jurisdiction of the >,% in criminal cases is provided for in =ection /9, B& -/8 which
is very broad in eneral 5 provided it does not belon to the =andianbayan or the
6unicipal ,rial %ourt "6,%). =o what does not belon to the =andianbayan or the 6,%
belons to the >,%. ,herefore, the best uide is determine the jurisdiction of the 6,%. $et
us foret the =andianbayan for the meanwhile. 3f it does not belon to the 6,%, it should
be to the >,%.
MUICIPAL TRIAL COURT #MTC$
Q: *hat law overnin the jurisdiction of the 6,%?
A: =ection 0/, B& -/8, as amended by ># A(8-. ># A(8- is the law e@pandin the
jurisdiction of the 6,% which took efect last #pril 9', -88;.
Sec. -2. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial courts in criminal cases. + Except in cases !allin"
within the exclusive ori"inal jurisdiction o! Re"ional Trial Courts and o! the
Sandi"an&aan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise.
'. Exclusive ori"inal jurisdiction over all violations o! cit or municipal
ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction/ and
2. Exclusive ori"inal jurisdiction over all o!!enses punisha&le with
imprisonment o! not exceedin" six $0% ears irrespective o! the amount o! !ine,
and re"ardless o! other imposa&le accessor or other penalties, includin" the
civil lia&ilit arisin" !rom such o!!enses or predicated thereon, irrespective
o! ,ind, nature, value or amount thereo!/ Provided, however, That in o!!ense
involvin" dama"e to propert throu"h criminal ne"li"ence, the shall have
exclusive ori"inal jurisdiction thereo!. $as amended & R.1. 20*'%
,here are only two "/) thins to remember+
'( all )iolations o* cit& or %unici$al ordinances co%%itted +it,in t,eir res$ecti)e
territorial jurisdiction
-( all o.enses $unis,a/le +it, i%$rison%ent o* not e0ceedin1 si0 234 &ears
irres$ecti)e o* t,e a%ount o* 5ne
*hen the prescribed penalty is below si@ "() years or kun $rision correctional and
down, puro 6,% lahat yan. 2verythin above si@ "() years, >,% an jurisdiction.
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
3
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
Q: =uppose if the penalty prescribed is i%$rison%ent6 5ne or /ot,?
A: Iever mind the 5ne and the /ot,( Just look at the i%$rison%ent. ,hat is the
innovation by the new rules. ,he 5ne is never considered in determinin the jurisdiction.
#ll you have to do is look at the i%$rison%ent, i(e( above si@ "() years 5 >,%. si@ "() years
and below 5 6,%.
RTC JURISDICTIO: #bove si@ "() years, reardless fne
MTC JURISDICTIO: =i@ "() years and below, reardless of fne
Q: =uppose the penalty prescribed by law is -99G 5ne? ,here are crimes na walan
imprisonment eh where the prescribed penalty is only fne. *hat will happen?
A: <nder the =% %ircular 9;?8;, if the penalty is i%$rison%ent and 5ne6 or
i%$rison%ent or 5ne, never mind the 5ne and concentrate on the i%$rison%ent( But if
the penalty prescribed is purely fne, apply the old law before ># A(8-+ it depends on the
amount prescribed by law. <nder the old law, if the ma@imum fne is &;,999 or less 5 6,%
yan. 3f the penalty prescribed by law is purely fne and above &;,999 5 >,% yan.
*here the prescribed by law is $urel& fne+
MTC 5 &;,999 or less
RTC 5 above &;,999
However, the e&ce'tion to t(e e&ce'tion is when the crime is damae to property,
like reckless imprudence, because in the crime of damae to property throuh criminal
nelience the penalty is only fne, wala yan imprisonment under the >&% and the fne is
e4ual to the damae or not more than three "0) times the amount of the damae.
EXAMPLE+ Cou bumped a car and you wreck it. ,he car is worth &-99,999. #no an
penalty? ,he minimum fne is &-99,999 5 e4ual to the value of the damae 5 and the
ma@imum is &099,999 "three times the value of the damae, #rticle 0(', >&%). =o the fne
could rane from &-99,999 to &099,999.
Q: =a >,% na ba yan because it is above &;,999?
A: IoF Basta damae to property throuh reckless imprudence, automatically it is the
6,% reardless of the amount of fne. ,he "76888 is only for crimes other than damae to
property throuh reckless imprudence.
Butline of the jurisdiction of the 6,% and >,% over criminal cases+
RTC+
-. when the prescribed penalty for the ofense is imprisonment e@ceedin si@ "()
years irrespective of the amount of the imposable fne.
2. when the prescribed penalty for the ofense is fne onl& and the imposable fne
e@ceeds &;,999.
MTC+
-. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction.
/. all ofenses punishable with imprisonment of not e@ceedin si@ "() years
irrespective of the amount of the imposable fne.
0. when the prescribed penalty is fne onl& and the imposable amount does not
e@ceed &;,999.
;. when the ofense involves damae to property throuh criminal nelience
irrespective of the amount of the imposable fne.
,ake note, jurisdiction is determined by the principal penalty not by the civil liability,
additional penalty or the subsidiary penalty, which chaned the previous rules under the
old jurisprudence. <nder the old jurisprudence in the old case of U(S( )s( ernardo, the =%
ruled that the penalty for simple seduction is only arresto %a&or Jnot more than (
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
4
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
monthsK. 3t cannot be tried by the old 6,%. 3t should only be tried by the %13 "now, >,%)
because under #rticle 0;' of the >&%, in the event that the accused is convicted there be
a judment for support and the acknowledment of the child which can only be decreed
by the %13. =o what determines the jurisdiction of the court is not the criminal penalty by
the civil liability.
&ero bahaw na yanFF ,hose pronouncements are already obsolete. Iow, never mind
the civil liability. =o, in simple seduction Jbelow ( monthsK, the 6,% can order for the
support and acknowledment of the child because that is only incidental. *hat is
important is si@ "() months lan an penalty.
CASE+ =uppose =ir Jet is convicted of less serious physical injuries for the (th time
within a period of -9 years only. ,he penalty for such crime is only arresto mayor 5 si@ "()
months ma@imum. But since =ir Jet is already a habitual delin4uent, may paton na yan
where the penalty can reach as hih as ( months to -; years and : months.
Q: *here are you oin to fle the case?
A: ,hat is what happened in the case of "eo$le )s( Custoso where the =% held that the
case should be fle din the >,% because you consider the principal plus the additional
penalty. But this doctrine is already obsolete. <nder the present law ># A(8-, we do not
consider the additional penalty, only the principal penalty. =ince less serious physical
injuries is punishable by arresto mayor only, it should be fled in the 6,%.
,ake note the openin clause of =ection 0/+ E0ce$t in cases *allin1 +it,in t,e e0clusi)e
ori1inal jurisdiction o* Re1ional Trial Courts and o* t,e Sandi1an/a&an( 3n other words, if
the crime has a penalty of si@ "() years or lower, dapat talaa 6,%. 3t cannot be tried by
the 6,% if the law says it is fallin within the e@clusive oriinal jurisdiction of the >,% or
the =andianbayan Ji* t,e la+ itsel* baFK.
3f the law says this case shall be tried with the >,%, sundin mo yan and never mind the
penalty because the law specifcally provides in what court you should fle it. 2ven if the
penalty is one "-) month imprisonment, pa?sinabi n law L>,%M, you follow it.
Q: Nive instances of this e@ception. 3n what cases will the >,% will try the case even if
the penalty is only si@ "() years or less?
A: ,here are four ";) instances as laid down by the =% in cases of !ORALES VS( CA,
/:0 =%># /-- "-88A) and CO!ELEC )s( NHO9NA9 , /8/ =%># /'; "-88:)+
-. Li/el 5 Olaro sa #rticle 0(9, >&% na >,%, pero if you look at the penalty for libel,
hindi man makaabot n si@ "() years baF #rticle 0(9 prevails.
/. T,e Decree on Intellectual "ro$ert&. %riminal cases for the violation of the 7ecree
on 3ntellectual &roperty 5 ma trademarks yan.
0. T,e Dan1erous Dru1s Act. Basta 7anerous 7rus, automatic >,% yan even if the
penalty is prision correcional lan.
;. Violation o* t,e O%ni/us Election Code 5 %riminal cases arisin from the vilations of
the Bmnibus 2lection %ode is with the >,% even if the penalty is below si@ "() years
and one "-) day "%omelec vs. Ihoynay)
!AMIL) COURTS
Q: *hat criminal cases are fallin within the oriinal jurisdiction of the 1amily %ourts
under ># :0(8 5 #n #ct 2stablishin 1amily %ourts?
A: ,he followin under =ection ', ># :0(8+
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
5
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
-. %riminal cases where one or more of the accused is below -: years of ae but not
less than nine "8) years of ae, or one or more of the victims is a minor at the time
of the commission of the ofense.
=o for e@ample+ -9 years old na bata, sinuntok mo 5 sliht physical injuries 5
sa 1amily %ourts yan. Hindi yan pwede sa 6,% because reardless of the penalty
basta below -: years old siya, 1amily %ourts yan whether he is the accused or
the ofended party.
/. %riminal cases aainst minors under the 7anerous 7rus #ct. and
0. Eiolations of ># A(-9 5 the famous child #buse $aw 5 as amended by ># A(':.
But since the 1amily %ourts have not yet been constituted, the temporary measure is
some >,% branches were desinated as actin as 1amily %ourts. Here in 7avao, the salas
of Jude Breva and Jude #rchanel are desinated as 1amily %ourts. ,emporary set?up
lan yan. ,hey are still >,% but actin as 1amily %ourts.
SADI%A*A)A
,he most confusin is the jurisdiction of the =andianbayan. 2veryone is always
confused with this =andianbayan. 3t is the most controversial.
How do you know that the case is to be tried by the =andianbayan or by the reular
courts? 3t does not mean naman that all crimes committed by a public oPcer must be with
the =andianbayan. 3t could be with the =andianbayan or it could be with the >,% or 6,%.
3f you know the jurisdiction of the >,% or 6,%, there is no problem. #bove si@ "() years 5
>,%. below si@ "() years 5 6,%.
But the problem is whether it is with the =andianbayan or the reular courts, because
for the =andianbayan, doon, reardless of the penalty na naman. 2ven if the penalty is
above si@ "() years or si@ "() years and below, if it is triable before the =andianbayan,
you o there. 1oret the penalty. ,hat is where there is some confusion. 6aramin
nauuluhanF
Q: *hat is the uideline in determinin the jurisdiction of the =andianbayan?
A: ,he latest overnin law is ># :/;8 approved on 1ebruary 9', -88A. ,his is what it
re4uires+
-. *hat kind of position in t he overnment does he hold or occupy?
/. *hat criminal cases was committed by him?
:HAT ;IND O# "OSITION IN THE <OVERN!ENT DOES HE HOLD OR OCCU"9=
=ino ba iton taon ito? 5 if he is a overnor, vice?overnor, member of the
sanunian, provincial treasure, assessor, enineers and other provincial department
head, city mayor, vice mayor, members of the sanunian panlunsod, city treasurer,
assessor, enineer, other city department heads, oPcial of the diplomatic service
occupyin the position of consul and hiher, &hilippine army and air force, colonels and
naval captains and all oPcers of hiher rank, oPcers of the &I& while occupyin the
position of provincial directors and those holdin the rank of =enior =uperintendent or
hiher, city and provincial prosecutors and their assistant, and oPcials and prosecutors of
the BPce of the Bmbudsman and special prosecutor, presidents, directors or trustees or
manaers of NB%%s, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. members
of %onress. members of the %onstitutional %ommission without prejudice to the
provisions of the %onstitution. Jito an1 $ina>a%a1anda:K all other national and local
oPcials classifed as Nrade /A and hiher.
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
6
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
,hose specifed positions or even if you are just an ordinary employee but you are
Nrade /A or hiher coupled with #nti?Nraft crime or crime committed in relation to your
oPce 5 =andianbayan yan, foret the penalty.
3f he is below Nrade /A and the crime is anti?raft or a crime committed in relation to
his oPce, then it is not =andianbayan. 3t is either >,% or 6,%. ,innan mo lan an
Nrade. ,hat is the cue. 6adali man lan ba+ you just correlate the nature of the crime and
the nature of the position.
:HAT CRI!INAL CASE :AS CO!!ITTED 9 HI!=
*hen it comes to criminal cases, dalawa "/) lan yan eh+ #nti?Nraft cases or violation
of ># -0A8 J1orfeiture of an illeally ac4uired propertyK. But more or less #nti?Nraft would
be a better e@ample since anyway majority of the cases falls there.
Q: How about those in the >&%?
A: 1ind out whether the crime was committed by the public oPcer in relation to his
oPce. Can muna an babantayan mo.
3f it is outside of those two Janti?raft or not anti?raft but the crime is committed in
relation to his oPceK, wala na, foret the =andianbayan.
*hat do you mean by Lcri%e co%%itted in relation to t,e o?ce o* t,e $erson
accused@? 3n the case of
PEOPLE )s( MOTEJO
+,- P(il. /01
!ACTS+ ,his is a case for murder fled aainst the former 6ayor $eroy Brown
of Basilan %ity toether with some Basilan policeman. Brown ordered his men to
arrest the suspect and he was interroated. 3t is in the course of the
investiation or interroation that they committed the crime of murder.
ISSUE+ *as the crime of murder committed in relation to his oPce?
"ELD+ Ces. 3n other words, if they were not public oPcers they would not
have succeeded in committin the crime. L#lthouh public oPce is not an
element of the crime of murder in abstract, as committed by the main
respondents herein, accordin to the amended information, the ofense therein
chared is inti%atel& connected with their respective oPces and was
perpetrated while they were in the performance, thouh improper or irreular, of
their oPcial functions. 3ndeed, they had no personal motive to commit the crime
and they would not have committed it had they not held their aforesaid oPces.
,he co?defendants of respondent $eroy =. Brown, obeyed his instructions
because he was their superior oPcer, as 6ayor of Basilan %ity.M
Bf course, normally when you say in relation to ,is o?ceQ ma *alsi5cation or
%al)ersatonQ yan, talaan klaro. ,hat is the normal meanin. ,hat is why in the -88'
case of CUNANAN VS( ARCEO, /;/ =%>#, the =% held that an ofense may be considered
as committed in relation to the accusedRs oPce if the ofense cannot e@ist without the
oPce such that the oPce is a constituent element of the crime. $et us try to compare this
in the case of
SAC"E2 )s( DEMETRIOU
1,3 SCRA /13
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
7
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
!ACTS+ 6ayor =anche! of %alauan was chared with rape and homicide for
the deaths of #ileen =armenta and #llan Nome!. ,hey were chared before the
>,%. =anche! 4uestioned the jurisdiction of the >,% that since he is an
incumbent mayor at the time of the alleed commission of the crime, his case
should be tried before the =andianbayan.
ISSUE+ *hether or not the >,% has jurisdiction over the case.
"ELD+ Ces. ,he case should be tried by the >,% and not =andianbayan. ,he
case of =anche! was not considered in relation to their oPce.
L,here is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape with
homicide and =anche!H oPce as municipal mayor because public oPce is not an
essential element of the crime chared. ,he ofense can stand independently of
the oPce. 6oreover, it is not even alleed in the information that the
commission of the crime chared was intimately connected with the
performance of =anche!H oPcial functions to make it fall under the e@ception laid
down in "eo$le )s( !ontejo.M
L3n that case of "eo$le )s( !ontejo, a city mayor and several detectives were
chared with murder for the death of a suspect as a result of a Dthird dereeH
investiation held at a police substation. ,he =upreme %ourt held that even if
their position was not an essential inredient of the ofense, there was
nevertheless an inti%ate connection between the oPce and the ofense, as
alleed in the information, that brouht it within the defnition of an ofense
Dcommitted in relation to the public oPce.H 3ndeed, they had no personal motive
to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held
their aforesaid oPces.
L*e have read the informations in the case at bar and fnd no alleation
therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to =anche! was connected
with the dischare of his functions as municipal mayor or that there is an
Dintimate connectionH between the ofense and his oPce. 3t follows that the said
crime, bein an ordinary ofense, is triable by the reular courts and not the
=andianbayan.M
LACSO )s( EXECUTI4E SECRETAR)
5,+ SCRA 16- #+666$
"ELD+ 3t is not enouh to say that the crime committed is in relation to his
oPce. Cou must make specifc alleations to show really the connection.
Btherwise, it will not be tried by the =andianbayan but by the reular courts.
L*hile the information states that the above?name principal accused
committed the crime of murder Din relation to their public oPceH there is,
however, no s$eci5c alle1ation o* *acts that the shootin of the victim by the
said principal accused was inti%atel& related to the dischare of their oPcial
duties as police oPcers. $ikewise, the amended information does not indicate
that the accused arrested and investiated the innocent victim and killed the
latter while in their custody.M 7apat+ nahuliQna?imbestiaQtapos, pinatay 5
yun, ma?consider paF &ero pa?sinabi mo na they killed him in relation to their
oPce, without further e@planation 5 walaF 3t becomes merely a conclusion lan
ba.
L,he mere alleation in the information that the ofense was committed by
the accused public oPcer in relation to his oPce is not suPcient 5 the phrase is
merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that would show the close
intimacy between the ofense chared and the dischare of the accusedHs oPcial
duties.M
L3n the case of "eo$le )s( !ontejo, it is noteworthy that the phrase
Dcommitted in connection to his public oPceH does not also appear in the
information, which only sinifes that the said phrase is not what determine the
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
8
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
jurisdiction of =andianbayan. *hat is controllin1 is the specifc factual
alleations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the
dischare of the accusedHs oPcial duties and the commission of the ofense
chared, in order to 4ualify the crime as havin been committed in relation to his
public oPce.M
Q: ,he ofender is a public oPcer and in committin the crime, he took advantae of
his position. #no yan? 3s that a suPcient alleation that the crime is committed in relation
to the oPce?
A: IBF 3t does not carry the same meanin. *hen you say that the public oPcer too>
ad)anta1e o* ,is $osition, that is only an alleation of an aravatin circumstance under
#rticle -;, >&%. "&eople vs. 6aallanes, /;8 =%># /-/)
Iow, there are instances where there could also be a conSict between the
=andianbayan jurisdiction and that of the reular courts. ,his is were we follow the
eneral rules on statutory construction t,at special law prevails over a eneral law. a
specifc provision prevails over a eneral provision.
=uch principle is applied in the case of De Jesus )s( "eo$le "-8:0), reiterated in the
case of Cor$uA )s( Tanod/a&an "-8:A). ,hese cases were decided under the -8A0
%onstitution. But actually, the doctrine still applies now.
CORPU2 )s( TAOD*A)A
A'ril +07 +6-3
OTE+ ,his Cor$uA case was asked in the Bar, not in remedial law but in
political law because it has somethin to do with the %B62$2%.
!ACTS+ ,he accused here is a %omelec reistrar who allowed the reistration
of voters outside of the reistration dayQ bawal man yan ba. =o there was a
violation of the 2lection %ode. He committed a crime in relation to his oPce. 1or
that, he was chared before the =andianbayan under the -8A0 %onstitution.
Iow, he challened the jurisdiction of the =andianbayan to try the case and
also the jurisdiction of the former ,anodbayan which is now the Bmbudsman.
<nder the 2lection %ode, violations of election code committed by public
oPcers in relation to their oPce are supposed to be tried by the >,%. 3t is a
direct provision in the code 5 >,% ehF #nd the preliminary investiation should be
conducted by the %omelec under the election code.
#nd of course the prosecution said+ LIoF <nder the law, when the crime is
committed by a public oPcer in relation to his oPce, it should be the
=andianbayan, not the reular courts.M &ero sabi n accused+ L<nder the
election code, it should be the >,%FM Iayon, sino nayon ma?prevail dyan?
"ELD: ,he election code prevails because there is a specifc provision which
is+ cri%es under t,e election code( *hereas the provisions of the =andianbayan
is broader+ cri%es co%%itted /& $u/lic o?cers in relation to t,eir dut&( ,hat
applies to public oPcers in eneral. =o the specifc provision prevails over the
eneral provision.
#nother interestin point about the =andianbayan is that the =andianbayan law says
that where a private individual commits a crime in conspiracy with a public oPcer, all of
them should be tried in the =andianbayan. =o Dyun isa, nasabit no? Iasabit yun private
individual. He is not even in the overnment bakit pati siya i?try sa =andianbayan?
Because may conspiracy. ,here should be a joint trial.
=o you cannot say that the public oPcer should be tried in the =andianbayan and the
private individual should be tried in the >,%. 7i pwede yan. Cou cannot split the
jurisdiction.
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
9
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
Q: *hat is the reason why the private individual should be tried toether with the
public oPcers in the =andianbayan?
A: ,he =% e@plained in the followin manner+ L&rivate persons may be chared
toether with public oPcers to avoid repeated and unnecessary presentation of witnesses
and e@hibits aainst conspirators in diferent venues, especially if the issues involved are
the same.M 2al%adrid )s( Sandi1an/a&an6 6arch //, -88-)
$etHs o to some interestin cases on the jurisdiction of the =andianbayan over
private individuals+
*ODOC )s( SADI%A*A)A
o8em9er 67 +66,
!ACTS+ ,his case involves Buietin12=4 o$erations "manuevers sa ma tseke)
between %entral Bank "a overnment institution, now Banko =entral n
&ilipinas) employees alleedly in connivance with %arlito Bondoc, an assistant
manaer of a private bank. Iow, two "/) %B employees were chared with
several counts of esta*a throuh falsifcation of public documents because of
their manipulations of the checks. 3 think what they did maybe somethin similar
to what 2strada did no? Bf course they were chared with the =andianbayan
and the cases were assined in the =econd 7ivision of the =andianbayan.
=ubse4uently after further investiation, another information was fled
aainst Bondoc as principal by indispensable cooperation and he was also in
conspiracy, so f?in?ile sa =andianbayan. His case was raTed to the ,hird
7ivision. *hen the ,hird 7ivision learned that this is related to the case aainst
the two "/) %B employees in the =econd 7ivision, pinasa sa /nd 7ivision for
consolidation. However, tapos na pala an trial dun "/nd 7ivision). =o the /nd
7ivision returned the case of Bondoc to the 0rd 7ivision.
=o naiwan na si Bondoc. Iow he 4uestions the jurisdiction of the
=andianbyan+ How could the =andianbayan try me alone when in fact 3 should
be tried jointly with the / %B employees. 2h tapos na silaF =o my case should be
tried in the >,%.
"ELD+ L,he law re4uires that the private individuals accused before the
=andianbayan should be tried toether jointly with the public oPcer. ,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 oPcers or employees whose own trials
have been concluded.M
LBesides, there is nothin 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 afect the very jurisdiction of the %ourt re4uired to conduct it. ,he
evidence of the =tate or of the accused does not become weaker or stroner
whether presented at a joint or separate trial. the rihts 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.M
=o joint trial is possible kun pwede pa. 2h kun wala na? 2h di maiwan ka na lan
dyanF Iow, sabihin mo+ CNoD NoD t,e t,e la+ sa&s Ejoint trialDF I s,ould not /e tried alone(@
,he =% in the case of ondoc said+ ,eka muna, do you have an advantae in joint trial? Br
when tried alone? Br you are tried toether with another person? 7oes joint trial make
your job easier or harder? 6akes conviction easier? *ala man bahF &areho man lan yanF
=o meanin, you cannot insist on a joint trial if that is no loner feasible. But as far as
the law is concerned, since you committed the crime in conspiracy with these public
oPcers, you remain in the =andianbayan. =o in that case "ondoc), ma?isa lan siya and
his trial continued in the =andianbayan.
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
10
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
A2ARCO )s( SADI%A*A)A
1/- SCRA 3:3 #!e9ruar; 1/7 +663$
!ACTS+ 3 think this case happened in Bisli. #!arcon here leased a truck of
somebody for loin operations. ,he owner of the truck was a delin4uent
ta@payer pala. =o the Bureau of 3nternal >evenue "B3>) issued this warrant of
distraint. ,he B3> looked for the truck which is 4uite an item which worthwhile+
CT,is truc> is ,ere/& considered as under t,e $ossession o* t,e IR( No+ since
&ou 2AAarcon4 are t,e one leasin16 o>e& lan16 itulo& %o /ut &ou are no+ t,e
custodian( 9ou are no+ ,oldin1 it in /e,al* o* t,e IR(@
#fter the lease, he returned the truck to the lessor "ta@payer). Bbviously,
nawala na an truck. =o hinabol na si #!arcon n B3>+ CaFt %o sinauli= T,at is
under distraint alread& and t,at is %al)ersationD@ <nder the >&%, the crime of
malversation may be committed by a public oPcer, by a private individual who
is entrusted with the custody of a property which has been levied by the
overnment "#rticle ///, >&%)M
=o, f?in?ile?an sya n kaso sa =andianbayanQ malversation ehF He now
4uestions the jurisdiction of the =andianbayan+ I a% not a $u/lic o?cer( I* &ou
+ant to sue %e6 &ou sue %e in t,e re1ular courts6 not ,ere in t,e
Sandi1an/a&anD
ISSUE+ 7oes the =andianbayan have the jurisdiction over a private
individual who is chared with malversation of public funds or property as a
principal after the said individual has been desinated by the B3> as custodian of
a restrained property? 7id such accused become a public oPcer and therefore
subject to the =andianbayan jurisdiction as a conse4uence of such desination?
"ELD+ Io. ,he =andianbayan does not have the jurisdiction over him. ,he
law e4uivocally specifes+ LQthe only instances when the =andianbayan will
have jurisdiction over a private individual, i.e. when the complaint chares the
private individual either as a co?principal, accomplice or accessory of a public
oPcer or employee who has been chared with a crime within its jurisdiction.
,he 3nformation does not chare petitioner #!arcon of bein a co?principal,
accomplice or accessory to a public oPcer committin an ofense under the
=andianbayanRs jurisdiction. ,hus, unless petitioner be proven a public oPcer,
the =andianbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime chared.
LNrantin ar1uendo that the petitioner, in sinin the receipt for the truck
constructively distrained by the B3>, commenced to take part in an activity
constitutin public functions, he obviously may not be deemed authori!ed by
popular election. ,he ne@t loical 4uery is whether petitionerRs desination by
the B3> as a custodian of distrained property 4ualifes as appointment by direct
provision of law, or by competent authority. *e answer in the neative.
LHowever, we fnd no provision in the I3>% constitutin such person a public
oPcer by reason of such re4uirement. ,he B3>Rs power authori!in a private
individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to
appoint him as a public oPcer. ,he prosecution arues that U#rticle /// of the
>evised &enal %ode . . . defnes the individuals covered by the term RoPcersR
under #rticle /-A . . .U of the same %ode. #nd accordinly, since #!arcon became
a Udepository of the truck sei!ed by the B3>U he also became a public oPcer who
can be prosecuted under #rticle /-A . . .M
L*e are not persuaded. ,he lanuae of the foreoin provision is clear. #
private individual who has in his chare any of the public funds or property
enumerated therein and commits any of the acts defned in any of the provisions
of %hapter 1our, ,itle =even of the >&%, should likewise be penali!ed with the
same penalty meted to errin public oPcers. Iowhere in this provision is it
e@pressed or implied that a private individual fallin under said #rticle /// is to
be deemed a public oPcer.M
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
11
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
*hat it says is, you can be chared for malversation. ,hatHs all. But he is still a private
individual and therefore he cannot be tried alone in the =andianbayan.
Q: <nder the present law, anti?raft or crimes committed by public oPcers below Nrade
/A, >,% man yan baF Iow, suppose you are convicted by the >,%, where will you appeal?
A: =andianbayan. 3t becomes the appellate court.
Q: 2h halimbawa, 6,%? ,he case is tried by the 6,% because the penalty is up to (
years only. %onvicted ka, where will you appeal?
A: >,%, in accordance with the judiciary law.
Q: 1rom the >,%, convicted pa rinF *here will you appeal?
A: &etition for >eview before the =andianbayan. 7o not o to %#. ,he =andianbayan
takes the place of the %#.
#nd take note, =andianbayan is now iven the e@clusive oriinal jurisdiction over
petition for issuance of writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction
and other au@iliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. #yanF Lin aidMQ
yan an importante dyan.

editor-in-chief: ortort editors : !ay"ee#elle #alite $ !%! torres $ i"&ael 'eloton $ aying dad(la $ !essayn
ag(stin $ lyle santos $ 'a(l ryan ong)ing"o $ dynn g(tierre* $ aya +(itain $ rie*l lo"sin $ 'atri") ta#ar $
aritess gon*ales $ ari"el "(l'a#le $ )ennet& leyva $ !enny nao" $ ferdinand vido $ elissa s(are* $
rayda s(llano $ r("el "ayetano $ rod +(ia"&on $ &anna& e,aen $ yra onte"alvo $ genie salva-a $ gra"e
salesa leo gillesania $ gea #etonio $ !enny a+(iatan $ i"&ael 'ito )aren de leon $ ela toron $
!(dee (y $ 'ao angeles $ !et 'as"(a $ contributing editors: #at&s&e#a #aldo*a $ arlo asang)ay
SPACE<!ILLER =+:
6y 1irst 2@perience
3t was dark, the moon was hih,
*e were alone, she and 3,
Her hair was soft, her eyes were blue,
3 knew what she wanted me to do,
3 didnRt know how, 3 just tried my best
By puttin my hands upon her breast.
Her hair was soft, her les were fne,
3 ran my fners down her spine,
3 remember with fear her beatin heart
#s she started to pull her les apart.
3t was dark, there was no liht,
=omethin came out, sticky and white,
3t was full, she had enouh,
,o make it throuh
<p and down, 3 pushed and pushed.
=heHs fne, 3 was not fooled
3tHs done. . .
3tHs throuh. . .
3tHs all over now. . .
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
12
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition
Jurisdiction in
Criminal Cases
6y frst e@perience of milkin a cow.
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
13