Jurisdiction

Front 1

What is criminal procedure?

Back 1

Criminal procedure treats of the series of processes by which the criminal laws are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who violate the penal laws. It regulates the steps by which one who committed a crime is to be punished. 

Front 2

What is criminal procedure concerned with?

Back 2

Criminal procedure is concerned with the procedural steps through which the criminal cases passes, commencing with the initial investigation of a crime and concluding with the unconditional release of the offender. It is a generic term used to describe the network of laws and rules which govern the procedural administration of criminal justice.

Front 3

Differentiate criminal laws from criminal procedure.

Back 3

Criminal laws define crimes and prescribe punishment for such crimes, criminal procedure lays down the processes by which an offender is made to answer for the violation of criminal laws.

Front 4

May the rules of criminal procedure be given retroactive effect?

Back 4

 Yes, in so far as they benefit the accused.

Front 5

What is jurisdiction?

 

Back 5

It is the power of courts to hear and determine a controversy involving rights which are demandable and enforceable.

Front 6

Distinguish jurisdiction from venue.

 

Back 6

Venue is defined as the particular country or geographical area in which a court with jurisdiction may hear and determine a case. It means the place of trial. On the other hand, jurisdiction is the power of the court to decide the case on the merits. Venue is thus procedural, while jurisdiction is substantive.

Front 7

What is criminal jurisdiction?

 

Back 7

Criminal jurisdiction is the authority ot hear and ry a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.

Front 8

What are the elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases?

 

Back 8

These are:

1.  The nature of the offense and/or the penalty attached thereto; and
2.   The fact that the offense has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Front 9

What are the requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases?/ What are the requisites for a valid exercise of criminal jurisdiction?

 

Back 9

For a court to acquire jurisdiction over a criminal case, it must have the following basic requisites:

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2.  Jurisdiction over the territory; and
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Front 10

What is jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter?

 

 

Back 10

It is the power to hear and determine the cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belongs and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers.

Front 11

Differentiate between the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter and jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused.

 

Back 11

Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case. The offense must be one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of.

 

    Jurisdiction over the person of the accused refers to the authority of the court, not over the subject matter, but over the person charged. This kind of jurisdiction requires that the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

 

Front 12

What is jurisdiction of the courts over the person of the accused?

 

 

Back 12

This refers to the jurisdiction of the courts over the person charged which requires that the person charged with the offense be brought into the court’s forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

Front 13

    How may the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused?

   

Back 13

 The court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court. (Check later notes for discussion on jurisdiction over the person of the accused).

Front 14

What does “jurisdiction over territory” entail?

 

Back 14

This element requires that the offense must have been committed within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

 

    Generally, this requires that the action be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was committed or where anyone of the essential ingredients took place. 

Front 15

Which law determines the jurisdiction of the court – the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense or the one in force as of the time when the action is filed?

 

Back 15

The law as of the time the action is filed, except when jurisdiction is dependent on the nature of the position of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense. In this case, jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense.

Front 16

Is venue in criminal cases essential?

 

Back 16

Yes, venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. For jurisdiction to be acquired by a court in a criminal case, the offense should have been committed or any one 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.

Front 17

What is the general rule with regard to venue in criminal cases?

 

Back 17

For jurisdiction to be acquired in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (Sec. 15(a), Rule 110)

 

Front 18

How is jurisdiction over the subject matter conferred?

   

Back 18

 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties, by the accused by any express waiver or otherwise nor by any administrative policy of any trial court.

Front 19

Give examples of relevant laws conferring jurisdiction.

 

Back 19

Some of the relevant laws concerning jurisdiction are the following:

 

1.   Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) which provided for the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, etc.
2.  PD 1606 which provided for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;

Front 20

How is jurisdiction over the subject matter determined?

   

Back 20

 Jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The complaint or information must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for by law for such acts fall within the jurisdiction of the court in which the criminal action is filed.

Front 21

 

    In complex crimes, which court may acquire jurisdiction?

 

Back 21

In complex crimes, jurisdiction is with the court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious penalty imposable on the offense forming part of the complex crime. (Cuyos v. Garcia, 160 SCRA 302, Bar 2003)

Front 22

In determining jurisdiction over the offense, which penalty is considered: the penalty that may be meted out or the actual penalty imposed after trial?

   

 

Back 22

 It is the penalty which may be imposed upon the accused and not the actual penalty imposed after the trial. 

Front 23

What is the principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing jurisdiction?

 

Back 23

This means that once jurisdiction is vested with the court, it is retained up to the end of litigation. The exception is when a new statute changing the jurisdiction of the court is given retroactive effect. 

Front 24

Is there an exception to the principle of adherence of jurisdiction?

 

Back 24

Yes, when the statute EXPRESSLY so provides or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate upon actions pending before its enactment. 

    However, 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.

Front 25

May the issue of jurisdiction be raised for the first time on appeal?

   

Back 25

Yes, the issue may be raised by the accused or even considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceeding.

Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.

Front 26

    If during the proceedings, the court finds that it has no jurisdiction, how should it proceed?

 

Back 26

If before the lower courts, the case should be dismissed. If before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, refer the case to the proper jurisdiction.

Front 27

What is the jurisdiction of the MTC in criminal cases?

 

Back 27

MTCs exercise the following jurisdiction:

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, regardless of the fine and other accessory penalties and civil liability;
3. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence;
4. In cases where the only penalty is a fine, exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with a fine not exceeding 4k
5.  In election offenses, cases involving failure to register or failure to vote;
6. Special jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioners for a writ of habeas corpus or application for bail in the province or city where the RTC judge is absent;
7. Cases involving BP 22.

Front 28

    What is the criminal jurisdiction of RTCs?

    

Back 28

Regional Trial Courts have the following jurisdiction:

1. 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;
2.  Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction;
3. Special jurisdiction to handle exclusively cases as designated by the Supreme Court;
4. Written defamation (Art. 360, RPC)
5.  Jurisdiction of designated courts over cases in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165);
6. Violations of intellectual property rights (AM No. 03-03-03-SC 200306-17
7. Violation of PD 957 (Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums)
8. Jurisdiction in money laundering cases, that doesn’t involve public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers which shall be under the jurisdiction of the SAndiganbayan. 

Front 29

 

What is the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan?

 

Back 29

PD 1606 provides:

 

    Section 4. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

 

(a)    Violations of the RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, 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:

 

          (1)    Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as “Grade 27” and higher

          (2)    Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and higher

          (3)    Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; 

          (4)    Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commisions without prejudice to the provisions of the Constution;

          (5)    All other national and local officials classified as Grade “27” or higher

 

(b)    All other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection “a” in relation to their office.

 

(c)    Civil and criminal cases filed by the Philippine Commission of Good Government.

1.  

Front 30

What is the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals?

Back 30

1.    Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction (concurrent with SC and RTCS)

 

2.    Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTC

 

3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of RTCs and quasi-judicial bodies, agencies or commissions except those which fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the SC, namely:

          a. COMELEC

          b. Commission on Audit

          c. Sandiganbayan

Front 31

    What is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Back 31

1.    Original jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus (concurrent)

 

2.    Review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, final judgments of lower courts in:

 

         a.    Cases involving the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation is in question;

 

         b.    Cases involving the legality of any tax, impost assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed threto;

   

         c.    Cases involving the jurisdiction of lower courts;

 

         d.    All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher;

 

         e.    All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

Front 32

How is jurisdiction over the person of the accused acquired?

 

Back 32

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or apprehension, with or without a warrant, or his voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

Front 33

When may voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court effected?

 

 

Back 33

As a general rule, seeking affirmative relief is deemed to be a submission to the jurisdiction of the court. The voluntary submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court may be effected by filing a motion to quash, appearing for arraignment, participating In the trial or by giving bail.

Front 34

Can jurisdiction over the person of the accused be waived?

 

Back 34

Yes,  as when any objection to the procedure leading to the arrest must be raised before the accused enters his pleas or it is deemed waived.

Front 35

X was charged in court with an offense. X filed a motion to quash on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over his person because the arrest was illegal and because the information was incomplete. Can X invoke lack of jurisdiction of the court over his person?

 

Back 35

No. One who desires to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person must appear in court for that purpose only, and if he raises other questions he waives the objection.

Front 36

Are all acts of affirmative relief tantamount to submission to the jurisdiction of the court?

   

Back 36

 Not necessarily all acts seeking affirmative relief would constitute a voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Making a special appearance in court to question the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused is not a voluntary appearance as when in a criminal case a motion to quash is filed precisely on that ground. There is likewise no submission to the jurisdiction of the court when the accused files a motion to quash the warrant of arrest because 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, GR No. 158763, March 31, 2006)

 

Front 37

Is being in the custody of the law tantamount to being under the jurisdiction of the court?

   

Back 37

 Not necessarily. Being in the custody of the law is not necessarily being under the jurisdiction of the court. “One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies restrain on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody of the body of the accused. It includes but not limited to detention. (Miranda v. Tuliao, supra)

Front 38

Is the presence of the accused necessary in order for the court to act on a motion?

 

Back 38

No, it is not necessary for the courts to first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to act on a motion, except when it is an application for bail, in which instance, the presence of the accused is mandatory.