1
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The government and the accused
shall present their respective evidence
before the court, which shall decide
whether the accused must be
acquitted or convicted. The court
relies mostly on the evidence that will
be presented before it, which is going
to be the basis of the decision or
judgment.
Inquisitorial System
In this system, the court plays a
very active role in the hearing of the
case because the court is not confined
only with the evidence that will be
presented before it.
The court may make use of the
evidence gathered outside the court
and the judges or group of judges
actively participates in the collection
of facts and evidence for the case,
unlike in the adversarial or
accusatorial system.
Interpretation of Criminal Procedure
“These rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every
PANOTes
action and proceeding” (Rule 1, Sec. 6,
Rules of Court)
• Cariaga v. People, G.R. No.
180010, July 30, 2010
The petitioner was a Municipal
2016
Treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela with a
salary grade of 24. She was convicted
of 3 counts of Malversation of Public
Funds by the Cauayan RTC. She
appealed to C.A. but such was
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
According to C.A., the appeal should
have been made before the
Sandiganbayan.
The rules of procedure must be
viewed as tools to facilitate the
attainment of justice, such that any
rigid and strict application thereof
which results in technicalities tending
to frustrate substantial justice must
always be avoided. Therefore, the CA
was ordered by the SC to transfer the
records of the case to the
Sandiganbayan.
Remedial Law
Remedial Law is the traditional
term given to the rules which
prescribe the procedure for the
protection and enforcement of all
claims arising from the rights and
duties created by law.
Remedial Law provides for the
“means and methods whereby causes
of action may be effectuated, wrongs
redressed and relief obtained”.
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1162,
citing Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines,
Inc., 260 Iowa 556, 149 N.W. 2d 789,
792)
Criminal Procedure
Regulates the steps by which
one who committed a crime is to be
punished. (People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA
267).
Lays down the processes by
which an offender is made to answer
for the violation of the criminal laws.
Difference between Criminal Law
Criminal Law, in general, defines
crimes treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment; while
Criminal Procedure treats the series of
processes by which the criminal laws
are enforced and by which the State
prosecutes persons, who allegedly,
violate the penal laws.
Adversarial or Accusatory System
The adversarial or accusatory
system contemplates two contending
parties before the court which hears
them impartially and renders judgment
only after trial. The two contending
parties, the prosecution and the
defense, tries to convince the court
that its position is the correct version
of the truth.
In this system, the accusation
starts with a formal indictment called
complaint or information and the
allegations in the said indictment shall
be proved beyond reasonable doubt -
quantum of evidence required to
convict the accused.
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
2
Criminal Due Process are present. Also
if the accused was given a day in the
court or given the chance to be heard
before a court with competent
jurisdiction, and processed the case in
accordance with the law, and the
judgment only rendered after fair trial -
investigation and inquiry upon him -
then, he was not denied Due Process
of Law.
• Alonte v. Savellano, G.R. Nos.
131652 & 131728, March 9, 1998
Accused were charged with rape
of Juvielyn Punongbayan. During the
pendency of the case, Punongbayan
filed a motion to change the venue to
RTC of Manila. During the pendency of
said motion, Punong bayan executed
an affidavit of desistance in favour the
accused. Subsequently, the motion to
change venue was granted, thus
transferring the case to Judge
Savellano. The respondent judge,
despite the affidavit of desistance
executed, issued arrest warrant
against the accused. During the
hearing of the case, the defense was
not given the chance to cross-examine
the witness and rebut the evidence
presented by the prosecution as their
silence was deemed a waiver.
The SC court ruled that Due
Process was not present in the hearing
of the case against Alonte. Such
silence made by them during the
cross-examination of witnesses does
not mean waiver as waiver must be
intelligently, and knowingly made and
with sufficient awareness of the
consequences thereof. With respect to
the presentation of rebuttal evidence,
the defense was not given a day in the
court to present such nor the day of
hearing reset for them to prove the
acquittal. Therefore, Due Process is
lacking.
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction, in general, is the
right to act or the power and authority
to hear and determine cause - it is a
question of law. The term imports the
power and the authority to hear and
determine issues of facts and of law,
the power to inquire into the facts, to
PANOTes
apply the law and to pronounce
Requirement of Due Process
• Source of Due Process
“No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without the due
process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the
laws.” (Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987
Constitution)
“No person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offence without
due process of law.” (Art. III, Sec.
14[1], 1987 Constitution)
Due process in criminal
proceedings is mandatory and
indispensable and cannot be met
without the proverbial “law which
hears before it condemns and
proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.” (Albert v.
University Publishing House, G.R. No.
L-19118, January 30, 1965)
• Requirements of Due Process in a
criminal proceeding
1. the court or tribunal trying
the case is properly clothed with
judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it;
2. that jurisdiction is lawfully
acquired by it over the person of
the accused;
3. that the accused is given
opportunity to be heard;
4. that judgment is rendered only
upon lawful hearing. (Alonte v.
Savellano, Jr., 287 SCRA 245)
• People v. Dapitan, G.R. No.
90625, May 23, 1991
The accused were charged with
robbery with homicide for robbing one
Orencia Amil and for killing, on the
occasion of robbery, an 8 year old child
Rolando Amil. They were convicted and
sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua
without applying ISLaw. They appealed
to the SC contending that the ISLaw
should be applied to them and the
penalty was cruel, degrading, and
inhumane thus depriving him of Due
Process.
The SC held that Due Process is
achieved when all the requisites for
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
3
obtained provisional liberty because
he posted bail. On trial, petitioner
failed to appear before the court as
she was suffering hypertension despite
due notice. Decision in absentia
convicted him of the crime charged.
Jurisdiction, once acquired, is
not lost at the instance of the parties,
as when an accused escapes from the
custody of law, as he violated the bail
bond, but continues until the case is
terminated. The RTC acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the
accused notwithstanding the fact that
he jumped bail and considered as
fugitive.
Requisites For The Exercise of Criminal
Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the Subject
Matter;
5. Jurisdiction over the Territory;
and
6. Jurisdiction over the Person of
the Accused. (Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, 388 SCRA 72)
• Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 123340,
August 29, 2002
Petitioner was charged with
Falsification of Public Document
before Manila RTC because petitioner
executed an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication of a parcel of land and
she declared in the affidavit that she
was the only heir when in fact not. The
filing of the criminal action did not
reserve the right to file a civil action
so both are instituted before the court.
Criminal case was dismissed but the
court ordered the return of the land
located in Bulacan to respective heirs.
Petitioner assailed the RTC decision
PANOTes
on the civil aspect but was denied. CA
also denied her motion. Thus, resort to
SC contending that RTC does not have
jurisdiction over the civil aspect of the
criminal case as the location of the
disputed land is located in Bulacan.
“Being a civil liability arising
from the offense charged, the
governing law is the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, not the civil procedure
rules which pertain to civil action
arising from the initiatory pleading
that gives rise to the suit.” When the
crime was committed within the
judgment. (Gomez v. Montalban, 548
SCRA 693; 21 C.J.S. Courts, § 2, 1990)
• Venue Distinguished From
Jurisdiction
Venue is defined as the
particular country or geographical
area, in which a court with jurisdiction
may hear and determine the case.
Venue deals with the locality, the
place where the suit may be had; while
Jurisdiction treats of the power of the
court to decide the merits of the case.
Adherence of Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the court is
referred to as “continuing” in view of
the principle that once a court has
acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
continues until the court has done all
that it can do in the exercise of that
jurisdiction. (20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, §
147, 1965)
General Rule: Once a court
acquires jurisdiction over a
controversy, it shall continue to
exercise such jurisdiction until the
final determination of the case and it
is not affected by the subsequent
legislation vesting jurisdiction over
such proceedings in another tribunal.
Exception: When the statute
expressly so provides, or is construed
to the effect that it is intended to
operate upon actions pending before
its enactment.
Exception to the exception:
When no such retroactive effect is
provided for, statutes altering the
jurisdiction of a court cannot be
applied to cases already pending prior
to their enactment. (People v. Cawing,
293 SCRA 267; Asarco v.
Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 647; Palana
v. People, 534 SCRA 296)
• Alva v. C.A., G.R. No. 157 331,
April 12, 2006
Petititioner was charged with
estate for deceiving Ms. Hervera to the
effect that he would process the
latter’s U.S. Visa for the amount of
P120,000.00. The Visa was not genuine
and only used such reason to get the
money from Hervera. Petitioner
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
4
cases, the complaint or information
must be examined for the purpose of
ascertaining whether or not the facts
set out therein and punishment
provided by law for such acts fall
within the jurisdiction of the court in
which the criminal action is filed. If the
facts set out in the complaint or
information are sufficient to show that
the court has jurisdiction, then that
court indeed has jurisdiction.” (Mobilia
Products v. Umezawa, G.R. No. 149357,
March 4, 2005)
- In Cases Cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan
Both the nature of the offense
and the position occupied by the
accused are conditions sine qua non
before the Sandiganbayan can validly
take cognisance of the case. (Uy v.
Sandiganbayan, 312 SCRA 77)
- In Cases of 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 crime. (Cuyos v. Garcia,
160 SCRA 302)
• Statute Applicable to a Criminal
Action
It is a hornbook doctrine that
jurisdiction to try a criminal action is
determined by he law in force at the
time of the institution of the action and
not during the arraignment of the
accused. (Palana v. People, 534 SCRA
296, September 28, 2007)
The statute in force at the time
of the institution of the action
determines the jurisdiction of the court
over the subject matter 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. (People v. Lagon, 185
SCRA 442)
• Use of The Imposable Penalty
The jurisdiction of the court is
not determined by what may be meted
territorial jurisdiction of the court, the
civil cases related thereto, like in this
case the land dispute, can also be
heard by the said court. Therefore, as
the criminal case was heard by the
RTC Manila, its civil aspect, being not
reserved to be filed separately, may
also be heard by such court even if the
location of the land is in Bulacan.
1. Jurisdiction over the Subject
Matter
Jurisdiction over the subject
matter is the power to hear and
determine cases of the general class
to which the proceedings in question
belongs. (Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil 484)
It is the power to deal with the
general subject involved in the action,
and means not simply jurisdiction over
the particular case then occupying the
attention of the court but jurisdiction
of the class of cases to which the
particular case belongs. (21 C.J.S.,
Courts, § 10, 1990)
• How Jurisdiction Over The Subject
Matter is Conferred
Jurisdiction over the subject
matter is conferred by law. It is the law
that confers jurisdiction and not the
rules. The rule is that in order to
ascertain whether a court has
jurisdiction or not, the provisions of
law shall be inquired into. (Durisol
Philippines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 121106,
February 20, 2000; Padunan v. DARAB,
G.R. No. 132163, January 28, 2003;
Soller v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
144261-62, May 9, 2001)
Only law can confer jurisdiction
over the subject matter. It cannot be
fixed by the will of the parties nor can
it be acquired or diminished by any act
of the parties. Conferment of
jurisdiction must clearly appear on the
statute or it will not be held to exist.
• How Jurisdiction Over The Subject
Matter is Determined
It is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or
information.
“In order to determine the
jurisdiction of the court in criminal
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
5
warrant of arrest because it is the very
legality of the court process forcing
the submission of the person of the
accused that is the very issue in a
motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
(Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763,
March 31, 2006)
• Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena,
321 SCRA 551, December 23,
1999
out to the offender after trial, or even
by the result of the evidence that
would be presented at the trial, but by
the extent of the penalty which the law
imposes for the offense, on the basis
of the facts alleged in the information
or complaint. (People v. Buissan, 105
SCRA 547)
2. Jurisdiction Over The Person of
The Accused

Accused were charged with Jurisdiction over the person of

Kidnapping of one Elmer Ramos. The the accused refers to the authority of
information was filed with the 1st the court, not over the subject matter
Division of Sandiganbayan. The of the case, but over the person
Sandiganbayan ordered the charged. This kind of jurisdiction
prosecution to amend the information requires that “the person charged with
because it was not clear if the crime the offence must have been brought in
committed was public office related. to its forum for trial, forcibly by
Amended info was filed and the warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary
accused filed a motion to submission to the court.” (Antiporda,
reinvestigation and a motion to quash Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551;
but were denied by the Sandiganbayan. Cruz v. CA, 338 SCRA 551; Cojuanco v.
Before the case reached SC, the Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367)
accused invoked jurisdiction of the

PANOTes
Sandiganbayan because they Jurisdiction over the person of
previously challenged the jurisdiction the accused is acquired upon his
of the RTC and contended that only arrest or apprehension, with or without
Sandiganbayan can try the case as it a warrant, or his voluntary appearance
was public office related. or submission to the jurisdiction of the
court. (Valdepeñas v. People, 16 SCRA
The Sandiganbayan, 871; Gimenez v. Nazarene, 160 SCRA 4)
unquestionably, acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the accused. The General rule: Seeking affirmative
filing of a motion to quash is relief is deemed to be a submission to
tantamount to a voluntary submission the jurisdiction of the court. The
to the court’s jurisdiction. The voluntary submission of the accused to
petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the court may be
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. effected by filing a motion to quash,
It was they who assailed the appearing for arraignment,
jurisdiction of RTC before the participating in the trial or by giving
Sandiganbayan when they seek bail. (Sagupay v. CA, 183 SCRA 464;
affirmative relief from it. A party Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633,
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321
court to secure affirmative relief SCRA 551; Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA
against his opponent and after 377)
obtaining or failing to obtain such
relief, repudiate or question that same Exception: Not all acts seeking
jurisdiction. affirmative relief would constitute a
voluntary appearance or submission to
• People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, the jurisdiction of the court. Making a
March 25, 2014 special appearance in court to
question the jurisdiction of the court
Arturo Enrile, DOTC Sec. and over the person of the accused is not
Henry Go, Pres. of PIATCO entered into voluntary appearance as when in a
a concession contract covering the criminal case a motion to quash is
construction of NAIA III on July 12, filed precisely on that ground. There is
1997. Such contract was said to be likewise no submission to the
disadvantageous to the government. jurisdiction of the court when the
Sec. Enrile died and the case was filed accused files a motion to quash the
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
6
of his person to the jurisdiction of the
court. Even if it is conceded that the
warrant issued was void, the defendant
waived all his rights to object by
appearing and giving bond.
• Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No.
158763, March 31, 2006
Warrant of Arrest was issued
against Miranda and other accused for
killing Buazon and Tuliao. Petitioners
filed a motion to complete preliminary
investigation and quash the warrant of
arrest. However, they failed to attend
the hearing over the matter so motions
were denied for failure to acquire
jurisdiction over the persons of the
accused. Another appointed judge
cancelled the warrants. CA reinstated
the warrant issued by the first judge.
The voluntary submission of the
accused to the jurisdiction of the court
may be effected by filing a motion to
quash, as stated in this case,
appearing for arraignment,
participating in the trial or by giving
bail. Except in cases when he invokes
the special jurisdiction of the court by
impugning such jurisdiction over him.
• David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113,
March 18, 2015
Petitioner became a Canadian
Citizen. He and his wife purchased lot
along the beach in Mindoro where they
constructed their house. It came to
their knowledge that such lot was a
public land so they filed Miscellaneous
Lease Application. The respondent
found out that petitioner is a Canadian
Citizen so she opposed the application
stating that he cannot own lands in
PH. She also filed a criminal complaint
for falsification of public document.
Provincial Prosecutor found probable
cause. Before his arrest, he filed a
motion for re-determination of
probable cause before the MTC. The
court dismissed the motion saying that
it lacked jurisdiction over the person of
the accused.
SC held that jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is deemed
waived when he files any pleading
seeking an affirmative relief, except in
PANOTes
cases when he invokes the special
before the Sandiganbayan. Respondent
filed a motion to quash the information
against him contending that he is a
private person and should not be
within the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan because the co-
accused died long before the case was
filed. Court granted the motion to
quash. State, aggrieved, filed a
reconsideration.
Sandiganbayan lawfully acquired
jurisdiction over the accused. Death of
his co-accused who is a public officer
cannot now be said that no conspiracy
happened between the two. It was the
personality of the deceased was lost
and it does not carry with it the crime
he allegedly committed in conspiracy
with the accused. Conspiracy of
private and public individuals can be a
basis for the Sandiganbayan to acquire
jurisdiction over private persons.
Therefore, there may be conspiracy
between the accused, Sandiganbayan
acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the accused.
• Cojuanco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 134307, December 21,
1998
A case was filed against former
administrator of the PCA and former
board member of PCA, petitioner is one
of them, for violation of RA 3019. They
allegedly conspired with Pres. Marcos
and took undue advantage of public
office in granting a donation to the
COCOFED amounting to P2,000,000.00
thereby giving COCOFED unwarranted
benefits, advantage through bad faith
which prejudices the Filipino people. A
case was filed before the
Sandiganbayan and it ordered the
arrest of them. Petitioner filed for the
Opposition against the warrant issued
and he also posted for bail before such
court. The Special Prosecutor found no
probable cause in the warrant and with
that the petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss.
The Sandiganbayan acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. Even stating that the warrant
against the petitioner is without
probable cause, such warrant is cured
when the petitioner posted for bail.
The giving or posting of bail by the
accused is tantamount to submission
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
7
2. Where the Supreme Court,
pursuant to its constitutional
powers orders a change of
venue or place of trial to
avoid miscarriage of justice.
(Art. VIII, Sec. 5[4], 1987
Constitution)
• People v. Sola, G.R. No. 125041,
March 17, 1981
The accused Sola and others
were charged with murder. CFI of
Himalayan ordered a warrant of arrest
against the respondent. Witnesses
against the accused were scared and
told the court that their lives would be
jeopardized as the court is 10kms
away from their homes and the
accused were out of jail because of
the bail bond issued. Witnesses filed a
motion to change the venue.
The SC ruled that the change of
venue is allowed as it is a
constitutional power granted to the SC
by the fundamental law itself. There
would be a change of venue or place of
trial to avoid miscarriage of justice.
3. Where the offense is
committed in a train, aircraft,
or other public or private
vehicle in the course of its
trip, the criminal action need
not be instituted in the actual
place of commission. It may
be instituted and tried in the
court of any municipality or
territory where said train,
aircraft, or vehicle passed
during its trip. It may also be
tried in the place of departure
and arrival. (Rule 110, Sec.
PANOTes
15[b], Rules of Court)
4. Where the offense is
committed on board a vessel
in the course of its voyage,
the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried not
necessarily in the place of the
commission of the crime. It
may be brought and tried in
the court of the first port of
entry, or in the municipality or
territory where the vessel
passed during the voyage.
(Rule 110, Sec. 15[c], Rules of
Court)
jurisdiction of the court by impugning
such jurisdiction over his person.
3. Jurisdiction Over The Territory
Jurisdiction over the territory
requires that the offense must have
been committed within the court’s
territorial jurisdiction. For jurisdiction
to be acquired by a court in a criminal
case, the offense should have been
committed or any of its essential
ingredients should have taken place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court. It is in that court where the
criminal action shall be instituted.
(Rule 110, Sec.15[a], Rules of Court;
Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764,
October 9, 2009)
It refers to the limits of the
geographical boundaries of a place
within which a court has jurisdiction to
act judicially. (Mendoza v. B.T. Co., 90
Phil 804)
• How Jurisdiction Over Territory is
Determined
The fact is to be determined by
the facts alleged in the complaint or
information as regards the place
where the offense charged was
committed. It 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. (Fullero v. People, 533 SCRA 97;
U.S. v. Jueves, 23 Phil 100)
• Territorial Jurisdiction and
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
General Rule: The offence must
be prosecuted and tried in the place
where the same was committed.
Exceptions:
1. Where the offense was
committed under the
circumstances enumerated in
Art. 2 of the Revised Penal
Code, the offense is
cognizable before the
Philippine courts even if
outside of the territory of the
Philippines. (Rule 110, Sec.
15[d], Rules of Court)
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
8
jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion - The English Rule follows
of others. (Cubero v. Laguna West the place or location
Multi-Purpose Cooperatives, Inc., 509 where the crime was
SCRA 410, 416) actually committed; while
the French Rule follows the
• Original Jurisdiction registration of the vessel
in which the crime was
Original jurisdiction means committed. The
jurisdiction to take cognisance of a Philippines follows the
case at its inception, try it and pass English Rule in taking
judgment upon the law and facts. cognizance over crimes
(Cubero v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose committed in a ship or
Cooperatives, Inc., 509 SCRA 410, 416) vessel.

A court is one with original 5. Where the case is cognizable

jurisdiction when actions or by the Sandiganbayan, the
proceedings are originally filed with it. jurisdiction depends opon the
(21 C.J.S., Courts, § 3) nature of the offense and the
position of the accused. The
offence need not be tried in
the place where the act was
• Concurrent Jurisdiction committed but where the
court actually sits in Quezon
This type of jurisdiction, also City. (Subido v.
called ‘coordinate’ jurisdiction, is the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
power of different courts to take 122641, January 20, 1997)
cognizance of the same subject
matter. Where there is concurrent - When the greater
jurisdiction, the court is first taking convenience of the
cognizance of the case assumes accused and of the
jurisdiction to the exclusion of the witnesses, or other
other courts. compelling considerations
so require, a case
Examples of Concurrent Jurisdiction originating from one
geographical region may
1. SC has concurrent original be heard in another
jurisdiction with the RTC in geographical region. (R.A.
cases affecting ambassadors, No.8249, Sec. 2 - An Act
other public ministers, and Further Defining the
consuls. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5, 1987 Jurisdiction of the
Constitution; Sec. 21[2], B.P. 129) Sandiganbayan)

7. SC has concurrent original 6. Where the offense is written

jurisdiction with the CA in defamation, the criminal
petitions for certiorari, action need not necessarily
prohibition, mandamus against be filed in the RTC of the
the RTCs. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5, 1987 province or city where the
Constitution; Sec. 9[1], B.P. 129) alleged libellous article was
printed and first published. It
8. SC has concurrent original may be filed in the province or
jurisdiction with the CA and city where the offended party
RTCs in petition for certiorari, resides. (Art. 360, Revised
prohibition and mandamus Penal Code)
against lower courts and bodies
and petitions for quo warrant and Exclusive, Original, Concurrent and
habeas corpus. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5, Special Jurisdiction
1987 Constitution; Sec. 21[1],
B.P. 129) • Exclusive Jurisdiction

The concurrent jurisdiction Exclusive jurisdiction precludes

among courts of different ranks is the idea of co-existence and refers to
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
9
decisions or orders of a lower subject to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of
court. Courts. While it is true that the original
jurisdiction of the SC is to issue writs
Hierarchy of Courts of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, habeas corpus, and
injunction os concurrent with or
Supreme Court shared by the SC with the RTCs and
CA, a direct invocation of the SC’s
original jurisdiction to issue these
Court of Appeals Court of Tax Appeals writs should have allowed only when
Sandiganbayan
there are special and important
reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition.
RTC Shari’a Courts
(Lim v. Vianzon, 497 SCRA 482, 491)

The rule simply means that the

MTC, MeTC, MCTC
petition must, as a rule, be filed first
with the court of the lowest rank
unless there are special countervailing
Prescriptive Period for Crimes
reasons justifying its filing in the first
and Interruptions
instance with the higher court.
Prescription of the crime is
• Special Jurisdiction
the forfeiture or the loss of the
right of the State to prosecute
Courts of special (limited)
the offender after the lapse of a
jurisdiction are those which have a
certain time.
special jurisdiction only for a
particular purpose or are clothed with
Prescription of penalty is
special powers for the performance of
the loss or forfeiture of the right

PANOTes
specified duties beyond which they
of the Government to execute
have no authority of any kind. (21
the final sentence after a lapse
C.J.S., Courts § 3)
of a certain time.

By prescription, the State - Courts of General Jurisdiction

or the People loses the right to
prosecute the crime or to Courts of general
demand the service of the jurisdiction are those with
penalty imposed. (Santos v. competence to decide on their
Superintendent, 55 Phil. 345) own jurisdiction and take
cognizance of all cases, civil and
1. Revised Penal Code criminal, of a particular
nature.
Art. 90 of the RPC provides
for the prescription of crimes: A court may also be
considered ‘general’ if it has the
1. Death, Reclusion competence to exercise
Perpetua or Reclusion jurisdiction over cases not
Temporal - Twenty (20) falling within the
years jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person, or body
2. Other Affilctive exercising judicial or
Penalties - Fifteen (15) quasi-judicial functions. (Secs.
years 19[6] and 20, B.P. 129,
Judiciary Reorganisation
3. Correctional Penalties - Act of 1980)
Ten (10) years
- Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction
4. Arresto Mayor - Five (5)
years A court is one with
appellate jurisdiction when it
has the power of review over the
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
10
less than six (6) years -
Eight (8) years
10.Offenses punished by
imprisonment for six (6)
years or more - Twelve
(12) years
11.Offenses under Interal
Revenue - Five (5) years
12.Violations of Municipal
Ordinances - Two (2)
months
13.Violations of the
regulations or
conditions of certificate
of convenience by the
Public Service
Commission - Two (2)
months (Act No. 3763,
amending Act No. 3326)
Act No. 3326 is not
applicable where the special law
provides for its own prescriptive
period.
• Jadwell Parking Systems v.
Lidua, G.R. No. 169588,
October 7, 2013
Petitioner was granted by
Baguio City to operate and
manage parking system in said
city pursuant to City Ord. 003-
2000. Respondents, dismantled,
took and carried away the
clamps attached to their vehicle
as they were parked illegally and
did not pay the fee. Cases were
filed, Violation of the Ordinance
was filed against respondents
because no probable cause was
found in the charge of robbery.
Take note that the commission of
the offense was on May 7, 2003
and the filing of the information
was made only on October 2,
2003.
There was prescription in
this case. Even though the filing
of the information will toll the
prescription of the offense, such
filing as in this case, was made
only after two (2) months after
discovery of the offense. Act No.
3326 provides that violations of
city, municipal ordinances shall
5. Libel or other similar
offences - One (1) year
6. Oral Defamation and
Slander by deed - Six (6)
months
7. Light Offenses - Two (2)
months
When the penalty fixed by
law is a compound one, the
highest penalty shall be made
the basis of the application of
the rules contained in the first,
second, and third paragraphs of
this article.
In the computation of the
period of prescription, the first
day is to be excluded and the
last day included.
Crimes Punished by Fines
• Fine is Afflictive - Fifteen
(15) years
• Fine is Correctional - Ten
(10) years
• Fine is Light - Two (2)
months
The subsidiary penalty for
nonpayment of the fine should
not be considered in determining
the period of prescription of such
crimes. (People v. Basalo, 101
Phil. 57, 61-62)
Prescription of violations
penalized by Special Laws
1. Offenses punished only
by a fine or by
imprionment for not
more than one (1)
month, or both - One (1)
year
8. Offenses punished by
imprisonment for more
than one (1) month, less
than two (2) years - Four
(4) years
9. Offenses punished by
imprisonment for two
(2) years or more but
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
11
There was no prescription
in this case as the violation of
special law provides that an
offense punished by more that
one (1) month but less than two
(2) years shall prescribe in four
(4) years. Therefore, only one (1)
year and ten (10) months and
four (4) days has lapsed, no
prescription of the offense.
• People v. Galano, G.R. No.
L- 42925, January 31, 1977
Galano was charged with
estate before Batangas MTC. He
posted bail for his provisional
liberty. However, during
pendency of the hearing he
jumped bail and government
forfeited such. Nine (9) years
after, he was re-arrested and
trial resumed. The case was
dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Petitioner re-filed
the case before the RTC Manila,
where the alleged offense was
committed. Respondent filed a
PANOTes
motion to dismiss on the ground
of prescription and double
jeopardy.
The crime did not
prescribe because Article 91 of
the RPC provides that the
prescription of the crime shall be
interrupted upon filing of an
information and shall commence
to run again when the
proceedings terminate without
the accused being acquitted or
convicted. Therefore, upon filing
of the complaint before the
Batangas MTC, the prescription
was interrupted.
When Prescription Begins to Run
• For RPC
The period of prescription
commences to run from the day
on which the crime is discovered
by the offended party, the
authorities or their agents.
• For Special Law
prescribe in two (2) months.
Therefore, there was
prescription of the offense.
• Republic v. Cojuanco, G.R.
No. 139930, June 29, 2012
This case is related to the
previous case charging the same
respondent with the violation of
Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. In this case, the Republic
filed a complaint against the
respondents for alleged violation
of RA 3019. The information was
filed only on March 1, 1990. The
alleged commission of the
violation was on February 8,
1980. The Ombudsman issued a
memorandum dismissing the
information of the Republic
because of prescription.
There was prescription in
this case. The SC affirmed the
memorandum of the
Ombudsman. Since the
commission of the violation was
February 8, 1980 and filing was
made only on March 1, 1990,
there was prescription. RA 3019
provides that prescription of any
violation is ten (10) years. There
fore the filing was made after
the ten (10) year period, the
crime has prescribed.
• Sanrio Co. Ltd. v. Lim, G.R.
No. 168662, February 19,
2008
Sanrio filed a complaint
against the respondent for
alleged infringement of
Intellectual Property. It was
alleged that the respondent
counterfeits the products of the
petitioner. NBI raided the
premises of the respondent and
found out that products were
obtained lawfully. An information
was filed with the DOJ after one
(1) year, ten (10) months, and
four (4) days upon searching the
house of the respondent by NBI.
DOJ, however, denied such on
the ground of prescription. CA
also dismissed the case on the
ground of prescription.
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
12
Prescription shall begin to
run from the day of the
commission of the violation of
the law, and if the same be
known at the time, from the
discovery thereof and the
institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation
and punishment. (Sec. 2, Act No.
3326)

When Prescription of Crimes

Interrupted

• For RPC

It is interrupted by the
filing of the complaint or
information.

• For Special Laws

The prescription shall be

interrupted when proceedings
are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run
again if the proceedings are
dismissed for reasons not
constituting double jeopardy.
(Sec. 2, Act No. 3326)

Prescription, if interrupted,
shall commence to run again
when such proceedings
terminate without the accused
being convicted or acquitted or
are unjustifiably stopped for any
reason not imputable to him.

The term of prescription

shall not run when the offender
II. Jurisdiction is absent from the Philippines.

Jurisdiction, in general, is
the right to act or the power and
authority to hear and determine
cause - it is a question of law.
The term imports the power and
the authority to hear and
determine issues of facts and of
law, the power to inquire into the
facts, to apply the law and to
pronounce judgment. (Gomez v.
Montalban, 548 SCRA 693; 21
C.J.S. Courts, § 2, 1990)

References

1. The Judiciary Reorganization

Act of 1980 in so far as it has
not been amended
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
13
election or within three months
before any special election. 2. B.P. 129

The resignation, dismissal AN ACT REORGANIZING

or separation of the officer or THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING
employee from his office or FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR
employment in the Government OTHER PURPOSES
or in the Government-owned or
controlled corporation shall not 3. P.D. 1606
be a bar to the filing of the
petition: Provided, however, That Created a special court to
the right to file such petition be known as “Sandiganbayan”
shall prescribe after four years
from the date of the resignation, 4. R.A. 3019
dismissal or separation or
expiration of the term of the The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
officer or employee concerned, Practices Act
except as to those who have
ceased to hold office within ten Section 10. Competent
years prior to the approval of this court. — Until otherwise
Act, in which case the provided by law , all
proceedings shall prescribe after prosecutions under this Act shall
four years from the approval be within the original jurisdiction
hereof. (Section 2, R.A. 1379) of the Sandiganbayan.

6. RPC Book 2 - Chapter 2, 5. R.A. 1379

Section 2 Title VII
An Act Declaring Forfeiture
Bribery in Favor of the State Any
Property Found To Have Been
7. R.A. 6713 Unlawfully Acquired By Any
Public Officer or Employee and
An Act Establishing a Code Providing for the Proceedings
of Conduct and Ethical therefore.
Standards for Public Officials
and Employees, To Uphold the The Solicitor General, upon
Time-Honored Principle of Public complaint by any taxpayer to the
Office Being a Public Trust, city or provincial fiscal who shall
Granting Incentives and Rewards conduct a previous inquiry
for Exemplary Service, similar to preliminary
Enumerating Prohibited Acts and investigations in criminal cases
Transactions and Providing for and shall certify to the Solicitor
Violations thereof and for Other General that there is reasonable
Purposes ground to believe that there has
been committed a violation of
The Civil Service this Act and the respondent is
Commission shall have the probably guilty thereof, shall file,
primary responsibility for the in the name and on behalf of the
administration and enforcement Republic of the Philippines, in
of this Act. It shall transmit all the Court of First Instance of the
cases for prosecution arising city or province where said
from violations of this Act to the public officer or employee
proper authorities for resides or holds office, a petition
appropriate action: Provided, for a writ commanding said
however, That it may institute officer or employee to show
such administrative actions and cause why the property
disciplinary measures as may be aforesaid, or any part thereof,
warranted in accordance with should not be declared property
law. (Section 11, R.A. 6713) of the State: Provided, That no
such petition shall be filed within
one year before any general
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
14
8. Executive Orders 1, 2, 14, 14-
E.O. 2 of 1986 A of 1986

REGARDING THE FUNDS, E.O. 1 of 1986

MONEYS, ASSETS, AND PROPERTIES
ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED OR
MISAPPROPRIATED BY FORMER
PRESIDENT FERDINAND MARCOS,
MRS. IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS,
THEIR CLOSE RELATIVES,
SUBORDINATES, BUSINESS
ASSOCIATES, DUMMIES, AGENTS, OR
NOMINEES.
E.O. 14-A, amending E.O. 14 of 1986
E.O. 14 issued dated May, 7, 1986
was issued vesting in the
Sandiganbayan original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all criminal and civil
suits filed by the PCGG.
The provisions of this Executive
Order shall prevail over any laws or
parts thereof, or the Rules of Court as
regards the investigation, prosecution,
and trial of cases to recover the ill-
gotten wealth accumulated by the
persons mentioned in Executive Orders
Nos. 1 and 2. (Section 4 of E.O. 14-A,
amending Section 7 of E.O. 14 of 1986)
9. R.A. 7080
An Act Defining and
Penalising the Crime of Plunder
Plunder
Any public officer who, by
himself or in connivance with members
of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
gotten wealth through a combination
or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section 1(d) hereof, in the
aggregate amount or total value of at
least Seventy-five million pesos
(P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the
crime of plunder and shall be punished
by life imprisonment with perpetual
absolute disqualification from holding
any public office. (Section 2, Definition
of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties, R.A.
7080)
Until otherwise provided by law,
all prosecutions under this Act shall be
within the original jurisdiction of the
Creating The Presidential
Commission on Good
Government
The Commission may
conduct a hearing, after due
notice to the party or parties
concerned within the purview of
Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2, to
ascertain whether any particular
asset, property or enterprise
constitutes ill-gotten wealth and
to determine the appropriate
action to be taken in order to
carry out the purposes of said
Executive Orders. (Section 7,
Conduct of Investigations, E.O. 1
of 1986)
The Commission, in the exercise
of its powers to investigate or hear
cases within its jurisdiction shall act
according to the requirements of due
process and fairness, and shall not be
strictly bound by the technical rules of
evidence. (Section 8, Hearing, E.O. 1 of
1986)
Any accumulation of assets,
properties and other material
possessions of these persons covered
by Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2,
whose value is out of proportion to
their known lawful income is prima
facie deemed ill-gotten wealth.
(Section 9, Prima Facie Evidence, E.O.
1 of 1987)
Based on the evidence adduced,
the Commission shall determine
whether there is reasonable ground to
believe that the asset, property or
business enterprise in question
constitute ill-gotten wealth as
described in Executive Orders Nos. 1
and 2. In the event of an affirmative
finding, the Commission shall certify
the case to the Solicitor General for
appropriate action in accordance with
law. Businesses, properties, funds and
other assets found to be lawfully
acquired shall be immediately released
and the writ of sequestration, hold/or
freeze orders lifted accordingly.
(Section 10, Findings of The
Commission, E.O. 1 of 1987)
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
15
Acquisition or Disposition of
Firearms, Ammunitions or
Explosives)
-Thereby sowing and
creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary
fear and panic among the
populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to a n
unlawful demand shall be guilty
of the crime of terrorism and
shall suffer the penalty of forty
(40) years of imprisonment,
without the benefit of parole as
provided for under
ActNo.4103,otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
as amended. (Section 3, R.A.
9372)
Request the Supreme
Court to designate specific
divisions of the Court of Appeals
and Regional Trial Courts in
Manila, Cebu City and Cagayan
de Oro City, as the case may be,
to handle all cases involving the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy
to commit terrorism and all
matters incident to said crimes.
The Secretary of Justice shall
assign a team of prosecutors
from: (a) Luzon to handle
terrorism cases filed in the
Regional Trial Court in Manila; (b)
from the Visayas to handle cases
filed in Cebu City; and (c) from
Mindanao to handle cases filed
in Cagayan de Oro City. (Number
8, Section 54, R.A. 9372)
11.R.A. 7055
AN ACT STRENGTHENING
CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE
MILITARY RETURNING TO THE
CIVIL COURTS THE
JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN
OFFENSES INVOLVING MEMBERS
OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, OTHER PERSONS
SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW,
AND THE MEMBERS OF THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,
REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN PRESIDENTIAL
DECREES
Members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines and
Sandiganbayan. (Section 3, Competent
Court, R.A. 7080)
10.Human Security Act of 2007
An Act To Secure The State
and Protect Our People From
Terrorism
Terrorism
Any person who commits
an act punishable under any of
the following provisions of the
Revised Penal Code:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General
and Mutiny in the High Seas or in
the Philippine Waters):
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or
Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d'Etat),
including acts committed by
private persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving
Destruction), or under
1. Arson Law
2. Republic Act No. 6969
(Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Waste
ControlAct of 1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207,
(Atomic Energy Regulatory and
Liability Act of 1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235
(Anti-Hijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No.
532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-
HighwayRobbery Law of
1974);and,
6. Presidential Decree No.
1866, as amended (Decree
Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing in,
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
16
Code, and to prosecute the
same. The Commission may avail
of the assistance of other
prosecuting arms of the
government: Provided, however,
That in the event that the
Commission fails to act on any
complaint within four months
from his filing, the complainant
may file the complaint with the
office of the fiscal or with the
Ministry of Justice for proper
investigation and prosecution, if
warranted. (Section 265,
Prosecution, Article XXII,
Omnibus Election Code)
The regional trial court
shall have the exclusive original
jurisdiction to try and decide any
criminal action or proceedings
for violation of this Code, except
those relating to the offense of
failure to register or failure to
vote which shall be under the
jurisdiction of the metropolitan
or municipal trial courts. From
the decision of the courts,
appeal will lie as in other
criminal cases. (Section 268,
Jurisdiction of Courts, Article
XXII, Omnibus Election Code)
13.R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A.
10630
The Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006
*Remember the Diversion
and Intervention Program of the
Government for children in
conflict with the law.
Where a child is detained,
the court shall order:
a. the release of the minor on
recognizance to his/her parents and
other suitable person;
b. the release of the child in
conflict with the law on bail; or
c. the transfer of the minor to a
youth detention home/youth
rehabilitation center.
The court shall not order the detention
of a child in a jail pending trial or
hearing of his/her case. (Section 35,
Release on Recognizance, R.A. 9344)
other persons subject to military
law, including members of the
citizens Armed Forces
Geographical Units, who commit
crimes or offenses penalized
under the Revised Penal Code
other special penal laws, or local
government ordinances
regardless of whether or not
civilians are co-accused, victims,
or offended parties which may
be natural or juridical persons,
shall be tried by the proper civil
court except when the offense,
as determined before
arraignment by the civil court, is
service-connected, in which
case the offense shall be tried by
court-martial: provided, that the
President of the Philippines may,
in the interest of justice, order or
direct at any time before
arraignment that any such
crimes or offenses be tried by
the proper civil courts. (Section
1, R.A. 7055)
Subject to the provisions
of Section 1 hereof, all cases
filed or pending for filing with
court-martial or other similar
bodies, except those where the
accused had already been
arraigned, shall within thirty (30)
days following the effectivity of
this Act transferred to the proper
civil courts: provided, that the
Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines shall, upon petition
before commencement of trial
and with the written consent of
the accused, order the transfer
of such excepted case or cases
to the proper civil courts for trial
and resolution. (Section 2, R.A.
7055)
12.Omnibus Election Code
(Election Offences)
Election Offenses are
embraced in Sections 261 and
262, Article XXII of The Omnibus
Election Code.
The Commission shall,
through its duly authorized legal
officers, have the exclusive
power to conduct preliminary
investigation of all election
offenses punishable under this
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
17
found to exist, the corresponding
information shall be filed by the proper
prosecutor within forty-eight (48) hours
from the date of receipt of the records
of the case.
Trial of the case under this
Section shall be finished by the court
not later than sixty (60) days from the
date of the filing of the information.
Decision on said cases shall be
rendered within a period of fifteen (15)
days from the date of submission of
the case for resolution. (Section 90,
Jurisdiction, R.A. 9165)
16.R.A. 10175
AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME,
PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION,
INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND
THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
The Regional Trial Court shall
have jurisdiction over any violation of
the provisions of this Act. including any
violation committed by a Filipino
national regardless of the place of
commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if
any of the elements was committed
within the Philippines or committed
with the use of any computer system
wholly or partly situated in the
country, or when by such commission
any damage is caused to a natural or
juridical person who, at the time the
offense was committed, was in the
Philippines. (Section 21, Jurisdiction,
Chapter V, R.A. 10175)
The National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) shall be
responsible for the efficient and
effective law enforcement of the
provisions of this Act. The NBI and the
PNP shall organize a cybercrime unit
or center manned by special
investigators to exclusively handle
cases involving violations of this Act.
(Section 10, Law Enforcement
Authority, Chapter IV of R.A. 10175)
17. R.A. 8369
AN ACT ESTABLISHING FAMILY
COURTS, GRANTING THEM EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CHILD
AND FAMILY CASES, AMENDING BATAS
14.R.A. 9160, as amended by R.A.
10167 and R.A. 10365, as
amended by R.A. 10630
Anti-Money Laundering Act
of 2001
The regional trial courts
shall have jurisdiction to try all
cases on money laundering.
Those committed by public
officers and private persons who
are in conspiracy with such
public officers shall be under the
jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. (Section 5,
Jurisdiction of Money
Laundering Cases, R.A. 9160)
15.R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A.
10640
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2002,
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO.
6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
The Supreme Court shall
designate special courts from among
the existing Regional Trial Courts in
each judicial region to exclusively try
and hear cases involving violations of
this Act. The number of courts
designated in each judicial region shall
be based on the population and the
number of cases pending in their
respective jurisdiction.
The DOJ shall designate special
prosecutors to exclusively handle
cases involving violations of this Act.
The preliminary investigation of
cases filed under this Act shall be
terminated within a period of thirty
(30) days from the date of their filing.
When the preliminary
investigation is conducted by a public
prosecutor and a probable cause is
established, the corresponding
information shall be filed in court
within twenty-four (24) hours from the
termination of the investigation. If the
preliminary investigation is conducted
by a judge and a probable cause is
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
18
those living together under PAMBANSA BILANG 129,AS AMENDED,
different status and agreements, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ACT OF 1980,
and petitions for dissolution of APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
conjugal partnership of gains; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

There shall be established a

e) Petitions for support and/or
Family Court in every province and city
acknowledgment; in the country. In case where the city
is the capital of the province, the
f) Summary judicial Family Court shall be established in
proceedings brought under the the municipality which has the highest
provisions of Executive Order No. population. (Section 3, Establishment
209, otherwise known as the of Family Courts, R.A. 8369)
"Family Code of the Philippines";
Since Family Courts have not yet
g) Petitions for declaration of been constituted, the temporary
measure is some RTC Branches were
status of children as abandoned,
designated as acting as Family Court.
dependent o neglected children,
petitions for voluntary or
The Family Courts shall have
involuntary commitment of
exclusive original jurisdiction to
children; the suspension,
hear and decide the following
termination, or restoration of
cases:
parental authority and other cases
cognizable under Presidential
a) Criminal cases where one
Decree No. 603, Executive Order
or more of the accused is below
No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other
eighteen (18) years of age but not
related laws;
less than nine (9) years of age but
not less than nine (9) years of age
h) Petitions for the
or where one or more of the victims
constitution of the family home;
is a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense:
i) Cases against minors
Provided, That if the minor is found
cognizable under the Dangerous
guilty, the court shall promulgate
Drugs Act, as amended;
sentence and ascertain any civil
liability which the accused may
j) Violations of Republic Act
have incurred.
No. 7610, otherwise known as the
"Special Protection of Children
The sentence, however, shall
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
be suspended without need of
and Discrimination Act," as
application pursuant to Ptesidential
amended by Republic Act No. 7658;
Decree No. 603, otherwise known
and
as the "Child and Youth Welfare
Code";
k) Cases of domestic violence
against:
b) Petitions for guardianship,
custody of children, habeas corpus
1) Women - which are
in relation to the latter;
acts of gender based violence
that results, or are likely to result
c) Petitions for adoption of
in physical, sexual or
children and the revocation thereof;
psychological harm or suffering to
women; and other forms of
d) Complaints for annulment
physical abuse such as battering
of marriage, declaration of nullity of
or threats and coercion which
marriage and those relating to
violate a woman's
marital status and property
personhood, integrity and freedom
relations of husband and wife or
movement; and
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
19
relates to the performance of his
official functions;
(c) Offenses punishable by
imprisonment exceeding one (1) year
or a fine exceeding Five thousand
pesos (Php5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no
private offended party;
(e) Where the dispute involves
real properties located in different
cities or municipalities unless the
parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon;
(f) Disputes involving parties
who actually reside in Barangays of
different cities or municipalities,
except where such Barangay units
adjoin each other and the parties
thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon;
(g) Such other classes of
disputes which the President may
determine in the interest of justice or
upon the recommendation of the
secretary of Justice.
The court in which non-criminal
cases not falling within the authority
of the lupon under this Code are filed
may, at any time before trial, motu
proprio refer the case to the lupon
concerned for amicable settlement.
(Section 408, Book III, Title 1, Chapter
7, LGC)
(a) Pre-condition to Filing of
Complaint in Court. - No complaint,
petition, action, or proceeding
involving any matter within the
authority of the lupon shall be filed or
instituted directly in court or any other
government office for adjudication,
unless there has been a confrontation
between the parties before the lupon
chairman or the pangkat, and that no
conciliation or settlement has been
reached as certified by the lupon
secretary or pangkat secretary as
attested to by the lupon or pangkat
chairman or unless the settlement has
been repudiated by the parties thereto.
(b) Where Parties May Go
Directly to Court. - The parties may go
2) Children - which
include the commission of all
forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, violence, and
discrimination and all other
conditions prejudicial to their
development.
If an act constitutes a
criminal offense, the accused or
batterer shall be subject to
criminal proceedings and the
corresponding penalties.
If any question involving any
of the above matters should arise
as an incident in any case pending
in the regular courts, said incident
shall be determined in that court.
(Section 5, Jurisdiction of Family
Courts, R.A. 8369)
18.R.A. 8293
AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE AND
ESTABLISHING THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR
ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
RTC’s are hereby designated and
shall be called Special Commercial
Court to try and decide cases involving
violations of the Intellectual Property
Rights which fall within their
jurisdiction and those cases formerly
cognizable by the SEC.
Katarungang Pambaranggay (Local
Government Code, Book III, Title 1,
Chapter 7)
The lupon of each Barangay shall
have authority to bring together the
parties actually residing in the same
city or municipality for amicable
settlement of all disputes except:
(a) Where one party is the
government, or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof;
(b) Where one party is a public
officer or employee, and the dispute
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
20
Municipal Trial Courts / Metropolitan
Trial Courts / Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
1. Those cases not falling
within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC and
Sandiganbayan
2. Over all violations of city or
municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial
jurisdiction (Sec. 32[1], BP 129)
3. Over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment of not exceeding
six (6) years irrespective of the
amount of fine and regardless of
other imposable accessory or
other penalties, including civil
liabilities arising from such.
(Sec. 32[2], BP 129)
4. Over all penalties consisting of
fine only which amounts to not
more than P4,000. (Sec. 32[2],
BP 129)
5. Over offenses involving damage
to property through reckless
imprudence. (Sec. 32[2], BP 129)
6. Violations of B.P. 22 (A.M. No. 00-
11-01-SC, March 25, 2003)
Special Jurisdiction
Special jurisdiction is acquired only if
the RTC Judge is absent
1. Petitions for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus
7. Applications for bail
In both cases, in the province or
city where the absent Regional Trial
Judge sits
Rule of Summary Procedure
Summary Procedure is a rules of
procedure wherein the court decides
the case through the evidence and
affidavits presented by the parties.
Summary Proceeding
Distinguished From Summary
Procedure
Summary Proceeding is the
instituted action filed by the parties
before the court; while a Summary
Procedure is the Rules that govern the
flow and determination of a case in the
instituted summary proceeding.
directly to court in the following
instances:
(1) Where the accused is
under detention;
(2) Where a person has
otherwise been deprived of
personal liberty calling for habeas
corpus proceedings;
(3) Where actions are
coupled with provisional remedies
such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery
of personal property, and
support pendente lite; and
(4) Where the action may
otherwise be barred by the
statute of imitations.
(c) Conciliation among members
of indigenous cultural communities. -
The customs and traditions of
indigenous cultural communities shall
be applied in settling disputes between
members of the cultural communities.
(Section 412, Book III, Title 1, Chapter
7, LGC)
All cases which can be a subject
of possible amicable settlement shall
be covered under the umbrella of the
Lupon ng Barangay except as provided
in Section 408 as mentioned above.
Before directly filing with the court of
competent jurisdiction, parties shall go
first before the Lupon ng Barangay if
their case or complaint is covered
under its jurisdiction. If the Lupon has
no authority over the case, or no
amicable settlement was achieved
before the Lupon, a Certificate of File
action shall be issued by the Barangay
and at that point, the adversed party
may now file a complaint before the
court. However, the direct filing to
court may be done by a party under
circumstances enumerated in Section
412.
Dapat bago magfile sa korte,
dadaan muna sa Baranggay. Maliban
na lang kung hindi sakop ng Barangay
ang ikakaso ng isang tao. Pero
kailangan pa rin ng Certificate of File
Action mula sa Barangay. Kasi merong
tinatawag ng “exhaustion of possible
judicial remedy”.
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
21
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
over criminal cases under specific law:
1. Written Defamation (Art. 360,
RPC)
7. Violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act (Sec. 90, R.A. 9165)
8. Violations of Intellectual
Property Rights (A.M. No. 03-
03-03-SC, June 17, 2003)
Concurrent and Original
Jurisdiction
By Concurrent means not
exclusive and by Original means not
appellate.
1. Concurrent Original with the
SC
• Over actions affecting
ambassadors and other
public ministers and
consuls.
A principle in Concurrent
Jurisdiction is that once a court
acquire jurisdiction in an action, such
cognizance will exclude other
concurrent courts
2. Concurrent Original with SC &
CA
• In special civil actions of
certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus against first level
courts or bodies, filed within
sixty (60) days from notice of
judgment or final order under
Rule 65 of Rules of Court
• The special proceeding of
habeas corpus under Rule
102 of Rules of Court
• The special civil action of
quo warranto under Rule 66
of Rules of Court
RTC Designated as Family Court
Original Jurisdiction of Family
Courts
1. The Family Courts shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction to
Cases in which a Summary
Proceeding may be filed before the
MTC
1. Violation of traffic laws, rules
and regulations
2. Violation of the Rental Law
3. Violation of the Municipal or
City Ordinances
4. All other criminal cases
where the penalty prescribed
by law for the offense charged
is imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or a
fine not exceeding one
thousand pesos (P1, 000.00),
or both, irrespective of other
imposable penalties,
accessory or otherwise, or of
the civil liability arising
therefrom
5. Offenses involving damage to
property through criminal
negligence where the
imposable fine does not
exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) (The 1991 Rule
on Summary Procedure)
6. Violation of B.P. 22 (A.M. No.
00-11-01-SC, March 25, 2003)
Jurisdiction of MTC over cases of B.P.
22
According to the Resolution of
the Supreme Court A.M. No. 00-11-01-
SC dated March 25, 2003 amending the
1991 Rule on Summary Procedure, it
includes in the procedure the violation
of the Bouncing Checks Law or B.P. 22.
Regional Trial Court
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
General Rule: Exclusive original
jurisdiction in all criminal cases not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body.
Exception: Those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
which shall hereafter be exclusively
taken cognisance of by the latter. (Sec.
20, B.P. 129)
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
22
cognizable under Presidential hear and decide the following
Decree No. 603, Executive Order cases:
No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other
related laws; a) Criminal cases where one or
more of the accused is below eighteen
(18) years of age but not less than nine
h) Petitions for the
(9) years of age but not less than nine
constitution of the family home; (9) years of age or where one or more
of the victims is a minor at the time of
i) Cases against minors the commission of the offense:
cognizable under the Dangerous Provided, That if the minor is found
Drugs Act, as amended; guilty, the court shall promulgate
j) Violations of Republic Act sentence and ascertain any civil
No. 7610, otherwise known as the liability which the accused may have
"Special Protection of Children incurred.
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act," as The sentence, however, shall
amended by Republic Act No. 7658; be suspended without need of
and application pursuant to Ptesidential
Decree No. 603, otherwise known
k) Cases of domestic violence as the "Child and Youth Welfare
against: Code";

1) Women - which are b) Petitions for guardianship,

acts of gender based violence custody of children, habeas corpus
that results, or are likely to result in relation to the latter;
in physical, sexual or
psychological harm or suffering to c) Petitions for adoption of
women; and other forms of children and the revocation thereof;
physical abuse such as battering
or threats and coercion which d) Complaints for annulment
violate a woman's of marriage, declaration of nullity of
personhood, integrity and freedom marriage and those relating to
movement; and marital status and property
relations of husband and wife or
2) Children - which those living together under
include the commission of all different status and agreements,
forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, and petitions for dissolution of
exploitation, violence, and conjugal partnership of gains;
discrimination and all other
conditions prejudicial to their e) Petitions for support and/or
development. acknowledgment;

If an act constitutes a f) Summary judicial

criminal offense, the accused or proceedings brought under the
batterer shall be subject to provisions of Executive Order No.
criminal proceedings and the 209, otherwise known as the
corresponding penalties. "Family Code of the Philippines";

If any question involving any g) Petitions for declaration of

of the above matters should arise status of children as abandoned,
as an incident in any case pending dependent o neglected children,
in the regular courts, said incident petitions for voluntary or
shall be determined in that court. involuntary commitment of
(Section 5, Jurisdiction of Family children; the suspension,
Courts, R.A. 8369) termination, or restoration of
parental authority and other cases
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016
23
reversal or modification of the decision
or judgment sought to be reviewed.
(Sec. 22, Appellate Jurisdiction, BP
129)
Special Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court may
designate certain branches of the
Regional Trial Courts to handle
exclusively criminal cases, juvenile
and domestic relations cases, agrarian
cases, urban land reform cases which
do not fall under the jurisdiction of
quasi-judicial bodies and agencies,
and/or such other special cases as the
Supreme Court may determine in the
interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice. (Sec. 23,
Special Jurisdiction to try Special
Cases, BP129)
8. Criminal cases where one or
more of the accused is below
eighteen (18) years of age but
not less than nine (9) years of
age, or one or more of the
victims is a minor at the time of
the commission of the offense.
Regard less of the penalty, as
long as the child is below
eighteen (18), Family Courts have
jurisdiction.
9. Criminal cases against minors
cognizable under the Dangerous
Drugs Act
10.Violations of R.A. 7610 - Child
Abuse Law
RTC Designated as Dangerous
Drugs Court
General Rule: The Regional Trial
Courts designated by the SC as
Dangerous Drugs Court have
jurisdiction over ALL VIOLATIONS of
the Dangerous Drugs Act
Exception: Cases against minors
cognizable by Family Courts as
discussed herein above.
Appellate Jurisdiction
RTC has appellate jurisdiction
over cases decided by the MTC. A
Notice of Appeal must be filed before
the MTC within fifteen (15) days from
notice of judgment.
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in their respective
territorial jurisdictions. Such cases
shall be decided on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in
the court of origin and such
memoranda and/or briefs as may be
submitted by the parties or required by
the Regional Trial Courts. The decision
of the Regional Trial Courts in such
cases shall be appealable by petition
for review to the Court of Appeals
which may give it due course only
when the petition shows prima facie
that the lower court has committed an
error of fact or law that will warrant a
PANOTes - CRIM PRO 2016