General Matters

Question 1

What is the difference bet. ‘jurisdiction over subject’ and ‘jurisdiciton over person of the accused’ re how it is acquired?

Answer 1

Jurisdiction over subject:
Conferred by law; cannot be conferred by the parties

Jurisdiction over person of the accused:
May be acquired by the arrest of the accused, or by consent of the accused, or by waiver of objections as when the accused enters his plea

Question 2

What is ‘Jurisdiction over subject’? What is ‘Jurisdiciton over person of the accused’?

Answer 2

Jurisdiction over subject matter:
Refers to the authority of the court to hear and decide the case

Jurisdiction over person of the accused:
Refers to the authority of the court over the person charged

Question 3

What is the difference bert. “Jurisdiction over subject” and “Jurisdiction over the person of the accused” re waiver of objectIon?

Answer 3

Jurisdiction over subject matter:
Cannot be waived by the parties; even on appeal and even if the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case

Jurisdiction over person of the accused:
Right to object may be waived; failure of the accused to object in time would constitute waiver

Question 4

What is Jurisdiction over the subject matter?

Answer 4

This refers to the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a cause [Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. No. 174414 (2008)]

Question 5

How is the subject matter and the court before whicht the case must be tried determined?

Answer 5

averments in the complaint or information

The averments in the complaint or information characterize the crime to be prosecuted [Brodeth v. People, G.R. No. 197849 (2017)], and the court before which the case must be tried [Avecilla v. People, G.R, No. 46370 (1992)]

Question 6

Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by _________

enumerate

Answer 6

-will of the parties
- waiver
- nor enlarged by any acquieence of the court
[Gomez-Castillo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 187231 (2010)]

• mere administrative policy of any trial court

[Cudia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110315 (1998)]

Question 7

What statute is applicable in determining the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action?

Answer 7

Jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, and not the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime [People v. Lagon, G.R. No. 45815 (1990)]

[NOTE: This rule refers only to remedial law and not substantive law.]

Question 8

What penalty is considered in determining whether or not the court has jurisdiction over an offense?

Answer 8

-the penalty which may be imposed upon the accused for the charge in the complaint

In determining whether or not the court has jurisdiction over an offense, we consider the penalty which may be imposed upon the accused for the charge in the complaint and not the actual penalty imposed after the trial [People v. Purisima, G. R. No. L40902 (1976)]

Question 9

What is the Principle of adherence of jurisdiction?

Answer 9

Principle of adherence of jurisdiction General rule: Under the principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing jurisdiction, once a court acquires jurisdiction over a controversy, it shall continue to exercise such jurisdiction until the final determination of the case [Mendoza v. Comelec, G.R. No. 188308 (2009)]

It is not affected by

1. A subsequent valid amendment of the information [People v. Chupeco, G.R. No. L-19568 (1964)]; or
2. A new law vesting jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal [Palana v. People, G. R. No. 149995 (2007)]

Question 10

Is the principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing jurisdiction affected by a subsequent valid amendment of information?

Answer 10

NO.

[People v. Chupeco, G.R. No. L-19568 (1964)]

Question 11

Is the principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing jurisdiction affected by a new law vesting jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal?

Answer 11

NO.

[Palana v. People, G. R. No. 149995 (2007)]

Exceptions: The succeeding statute

1. expressly provides, or
2. is construed to the effect that it is intended to
   operate to actions pending before its enactment [Palana v. People, G. R. No. 149995 (2007)]

Question 12

What are the exceptions to the Principle of adherence of jurisdiction?

Answer 12

Exceptions: The succeeding statute

1. expressly provides, or
2. is construed to the effect that it is intended to
   operate to actions pending before its enactment [Palana v. People, G. R. No. 149995 (2007)]

Question 13

What is ‘Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused’?

Answer 13

The person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial

1. Forcibly by warrant of arrest; or
2. Voluntary appearance or submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court

[Antiporda v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 133289 (1999), citing Arula v. Espino, G.R. No. L-28949 (1969)]

Question 14

How is voluntary appearance of the accused accomplished?

Answer 14

1. Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief
2. Giving bail

[Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 99289-90 (1993)]

Question 15

There is no voluntary appearance under item (a) (filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief) above in case of special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over the person [Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 170122 & 171381 (2009)], e.g. a motion to quash

1. a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused because failure to file would be a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, or
2. the 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 the motion to quash a warrant of arrest
   [Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763 (2006)]

Answer 15

There is no voluntary appearance under item (a) (filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief) above in case of special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over the person [Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 170122 & 171381 (2009)], e.g. a motion to quash

1. a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused because failure to file would be a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, or
2. the 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 the motion to quash a warrant of arrest
   [Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763 (2006)]

Question 16

Is the fact that the order of arrest had already been issued (warrant of arrest) a bar the consideration of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstances?

Answer 16

NO. The law does not require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest

When after the commission of the crime and the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused presented himself in the municipal building to post the bond for his temporary release, voluntary surrender is mitigating. The fact that the order of arrest had already been issued is no bar to the consideration of the circumstances because the law does not require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest [Rivera v. CA, G.R. No. 125867 (2000), citing People v. Yecla (erroneously referred to as Yeda), G.R. No. 46612 (1939) and People v. Turalba, G.R. No. L-29118 (1974)]

Question 17

What does Territorial Jurisdiction entail?

Answer 17

The place where the criminal offense was committed not only determines the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction [Alfelor v. Intia G.R. No. L-27590 (1976)]

For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of the limited territory [Uy v. CA, G.R. No. 119000 (1997)] One cannot be held to answer for any crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it was committed [People v. Mercado, G.R. No. L-2760 (1950)]

Question 18

How is Territorial Jurisdiction determined?

Answer 18

This is to be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information as regards the place where the offense charged was committed [Buaya v. Polo, G.R. No. 167764 (2009)]

Question 19

What is criminal jurisdiction?

Answer 19

The authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it [People v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-40527 (1976)]

Question 20

What are the requisites of Criminal Jurisdiction?

Answer 20

a. Subject matter jurisdiction: the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of
b. Territorial jurisdiction:the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction
c. Jurisdiction over the person: the person charged with the offense must have been brought into its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

All three requisites must concur before a court can acquire jurisdiction to try a case [Antiporda v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 133289 (1999), citing Arula v. Espino, G.R. No. L-28949 (1969)]

Question 21

What does ‘subject matter jurisdiction’ entail?

Answer 21

Subject matter jurisdiction: the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of

Question 22

What does ‘territorial jurisdiction’ entail?

Answer 22

the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction

Question 23

What does ‘jurisdiction over the person’ entail?

Answer 23

the person charged with the offense must have been brought into its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

Question 24

What is the the jurisdiction of the MTC/MeTC/MCTC?

Answer 24

Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the MTC/MeTC/MCTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over:

a. All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction
b. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof

c. Over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence
[Sec. 32, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

d. Concurrent original jurisdiction with RTCs over violations of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act), as amended, in cities or provinces where there are no family courts yet, depending on the penalties prescribed for the offense charged [Sec. 16-A, R.A. 7610, as amended by R.A. 9231]

Note: SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94 (1994):

1. Item c: The criminal jurisdiction of the first-level courts under Sec. 32(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, has been increased to cover offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of the fine. As a consequence, the RTCs have no more original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, where the offense is punishable by more than 4 years and 2 months up to 6 years.
2. Item d: The provisions of Sec. 32(2) of B.P. 129 as amended by R.A. 7691, apply only to offenses punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both, in which cases the amount of the fine is disregarded in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
   a. However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the amount thereof shall determine the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with the original provisions of Sec. 32(2) of B.P. 129 which fixed original exclusive jurisdiction of the first-level courts over offenses punishable with a fine of not more P4,000.
   b. If the amount of the fine exceeds P4,000, the RTC shall have jurisdiction, including offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office
   c. However, this rule does not apply to offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence which are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the firstlevel courts, irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine.

Question 25

What is the jurisdiction of the RTC?

Answer 25

a. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, EXCEPT those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter [Sec. 20, BP 129] b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by first-level courts within their territorial jurisdiction [Sec. 22, BP 129] c. Criminal cases commenced by information against the child upon determination of probable cause by the prosecutor [Sec. 33, R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A. 10630], in places where there are no family courts [Sec. 4(g), R.A. 9344] d. Exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases [Secs. 20, 61, 62, 90, R.A. 9165, see De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017)] e. Concurrent original jurisdiction with MTCs over violations of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act), as amended, in cities or provinces where there are no family courts yet, depending on the penalties prescribed for the offense charged [Sec. 16-A, R.A. 7610, as amended by R.A. 9231] f. Cases of violence against women and children under R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act), in the absence of the RTC designated as a Family Court in the place where the offense was committed g. Violations of intellectual property rights [A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC (2003); R.A. 8293] h. Money laundering cases EXCEPT those committed by public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan [Sec. 5, R.A. 9160, as amended] i. For offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan where the information a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or b) the alleged damage to the government or the bribery arising from the or closely related transactions are of an amount not exceeding P1 million [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]

Question 26

What is the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan?

Answer 26

a. Violations of: 1. RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) 2. RA 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of The State Any Property Found To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Public Officer or Employee) 3. Crimes mentioned in Book 2, Title VII, Section 2, Chapter 2 of the RPC (Indirect Bribery, Corruption of Public officials, etc.) where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense • officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 [RA 6758]: ▪ Provincial governors, vicegovernors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads ▪ City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads ▪ officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher ▪ Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank ▪ officers of the PNP while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher; ▪ City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor ▪ Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of GOCCs, state universities or educational institutions or foundations • Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as “Grade 27” and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 198 • Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution • Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution • All other national and local officials classified as “Grade 27” b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public officials and employees mentioned above in relation to their office. The following must concur: An offense is deemed committed in relation to his office when it cannot exist without the office 1. The office is a constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute 2. The offense be intimately connected with the office of the offender 3. The fact that the offense was committed in relation to the office must be alleged in the Information [People v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 118013-14 (1995)] c. Criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A (1986) [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]

Question 27

In the absence of any allegation that the offense was committed in relation to office of the accused, which court has jurisdiction over the case?

Answer 27

RTC ------------------------------------- In the absence of any allegation that the offense was committed in relation to the office of the accused or was necessarily connected with the discharge of their functions, the RTC and not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over the case [People v. Cawaling G.R. No. 117970 (1998)]

Question 28

Iden This the general law on jurisdicition of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high-rainking public officers in relatoin to their offices.

Answer 28

Section 4(b) of P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660, ----------------------------------

Question 29

Iden This is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed by such public officers.

Answer 29

Sec. 90, R.A. 9165 jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by the Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless of whether the violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the public officials' office [De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017)] -----------------------------------------RA 9165 - Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 SEC. 90. Jurisdiction. — 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 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.

Question 30

What is the jurisdiction of Military Courts?

Answer 30

General rule: Ordinary courts will have jurisdiction over cases involving members of the armed forces, and other persons subject to military law, regardless of who the co-accused or victims are. Exception: When the offense is service-oriented, it will be tried by the court martial; Provided, that the President 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. [Sec. 1, R.A. 7055]

Question 31

When will a case involving member of the armed forces, and other members of the armed forces be tried by the court martial?

Answer 31

When the offense is service-oriented, it will be tried by the court martial; Provided, that the President 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. [Sec. 1, R.A. 7055] ---------------------------- Section 1. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and 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. As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended. In imposing the penalty for such crimes or offenses, the court-martial may take into consideration the penalty prescribed thereforee in the Revised Penal Code, other special laws, or local government ordinances.

Question 32

What is the general on injuctions to restrain criminal prosecution?

Answer 32

General rule: Criminal prosecution may NOT be blocked by court prohibition or injunction [Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-65 (1990)]

Question 33

What is the rationale for the rule that 'criminal prosecution may not be blocked by court prohibition or injuction'?

Answer 33

Rationale: If at every turn investigation of a crime will be halted by a court order, the administration of criminal justice will meet with an undue setback. Indeed, the investigative power of the Fiscal may suffer such a tremendous shrinkage that it may end up in hollow sound rather than as a part and parcel of the machinery of criminal justice [Hernandez v. Albano, G.R. No. L-19272 (1967)]

Question 34

What are the exceptions to the rule that 'injuction may not be issued to restrain criminal prosecution?'

Answer 34

a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of suits c. Where there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice d. Where acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority e. When the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent g. When court has no jurisdiction over the offense h. When it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by vengeance j. Where there is no prima facie case and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied k. Where preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners [Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-65 (1990)] l. When it is necessary to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner [Hernandez v. Albano, G.R. No. L-19272 (1967)]