Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Procedure
Chapter I: Preliminary Considerations
I.
Basic Concepts
1.
2.
3.
Criminal Procedure
Lays down the
processes by which an
offender is made to
answer for the
violation of criminal
laws
2.
1.
1.
2.
4.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
Treason
Conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
Misprision of treason
Espionage
Inciting to war and giving motive of
reprisals
Violation of neutrality
Correspondence with Hostile Country
Flight to Enemys Country
1.
2.
3.
Piracy
Mutiny
Qualified Piracy
Estafa cases;
b.
c.
d.
Complex crimes;
Cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan;
Court martial cases.
2.
3.
2.
3.
5.
Uy v. Sandiganbayan. In cases
cognizable by Sandiganbayan, both (1) the
nature of the offense and (2) the
position occupied by the accused are
conditions sine qua non before the
Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance
of the case.
Cuyos v. Garcia. In complex crimes,
jurisdiction is with the court having
jurisdiction to impose the maximum
and most serious penalty imposable on
the offense forming part of the complex
crimes.
1.
2.
3.
XPN:
2.
2.
2.
b.
c.
GR: Based on Art. 27 of RPC, MTC has
jurisdiction over offenses punishable by up to
the maximum of prision correctional which
shall not exceed six years.
7.
XPN:
(1) Offenses which even if punishable by
prision correccional are not cognizable by
the MTC because of express provision of
law (e.g. Art. 355, RPC on Libel, in this case
the RTC has jurisdiction)
(2) Some forms of bribery (Art. 210, RPC)
which are punishable by prision
correccional, are within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of
PD 1606 as amended
(3) Indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC), under
Sandiganbayan pursuant to PD 1606, as
amended.
3.
4.
5.
6.
a.
1.
Sandiganbayan only
Sandiganbayan or Regional Trial Court
Sandiganbayan or Court Martial
Regional Trial Court only
2.
3.
4.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
the MTC;
the RTC;
2.
2012 Bar, Q. 72: Cesar, age 16, a habitual
offender, was caught in possession of .
001 grams of marijuana. He was charged
for violation of Sec. 16 of R.A. 9165, The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law.
The court which has jurisdiction is:
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2.
2.
4.
3.
Forfeiture Cases
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan. A forfeiture case
under R.A. 1379 arises out of a cause of action
separate and different from a plunder case, this
negating the notion that the crime of plunder
absorbs the forfeiture case.
All that the court needs to determine, by
preponderance of evidence, under R.A. 1379 is
the disproportion of respondents properties to
his legitimate income, it being unnecessary to
prove how he acquired such properties.
5.
8.
4.
2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
6.
7.
9.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
3.
4.
5.
6.