Published & Distributed by
REX Book Store
856 Nicanor Reyes, Sr. St. Tel. Nos. 736-05-67 •735-13-64
1977 C.M. Recto Avenue Tel. Nos. 735-55-27 • 735-55-34 Manila, Philippines www.rexpublishing.com.ph f- m
$
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(THE BAR LECTURES SERIES)
Updated Edition
BY
WILLARD B. RIANO
Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law, Commercial Law and Civil Law Author: Fundamentals of Civil Procedure; Evidence,
(A Restatement for the Bar); Civil Procedure (A Restatement for the Bar);
Evidence (The Bar Lectures Series)
Dean, College of Law, San Sebastian College Recoletos-Manila Member, Remedial Law and Commercial Law Committees,
U.P. Law Center
Professor and Lecturer, Philippine Judicial Academy, Supreme Court of the Philippines
Philippine Copyright, 2011 by
^ulT
WILLARD B. RIANO
ISBN 978-971-23-6158-6
No portion of this book may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes, whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic devices or in any other form, for distribution or sale, without the written permission of the author except brief passages in books, articles, reviews, legal papers, and judicial or other official proceedings with proper citation.
Any copy of this book without the corresponding number and the signature of the author on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose of the same.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR
N? 1492
ISBN 978-971-23-6158-6 05-RL-00042 9 Printed by 05-RL-00042 9789712361586DEDICATION
Nina... Daddy... Mommy... Nonong... Neneng...
PREFACE
After this work was submitted for publication on January 5, 2011, materials became available which contained court decisions worthy to be recommended for further readings. Foremost of these cases is that of Judith
Yu v. Samson-Tatad (G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011), which ended
previous speculations as to the applicability of the "fresh-period" rule to appeals in criminal cases. Hence, the need for an updated edition.
This edition required the insertion of new case citations within the main chapters as well as the discussion of more recent Court rulings under the heading, Synopsis of Selected Cases. The cases selected were those with facts not involved in those decisions treated in the original edition. The criminal procedure aspects of the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases were likewise added.
In the process of enhancing the current material, some paragraphs which could have possibly given rise to misunderstanding were deleted. Mere matters of opinion were likewise taken out so as not to detract from the instructional purpose of this material. Also, certain portions which are matters of purely substantive law were expunged and only those necessary to explain procedural concepts were retained. Some paragraphs were likewise reworded for greater clarity in the presentation of procedural principles. In some instances, adjustments to editorial oversights in the original edition were effected.
It is worth reiterating that this work is written primarily for the bar reviewee and the law student who need to be adequately equipped with the "core" knowledge required to hurdle the bar examinations. It is based on an empirically anchored deep-seated philosophy that passing the bar
examinations requires a quick recall of the law and the rules. Hence, topics in this work have been treated with emphasis on the very substance of the Rules of Court, a treatment traditionally referred to by academicians as a 'codal' approach.
While the framework of this material is mainly codal- based, it is supported by cases which mirror, not only the current position of the Supreme Court on vital issues in the criminal litigation process but also by significant foreign cases designed to aid the reader to understand a particular rule from a parallel doctrinal perspective. Cases have been judiciously selected to permit the reader to appreciate how the Supreme Court grappled with and settled a wide range of issues arising in the various stages of criminal procedure.
The scope of this book reveals its having no pretensions of being an exhaustive treatise on criminal procedure. Honest efforts have been taken to strip it of materials which veer away from what is fundamental and basic to allow a reasonably wide wiggle room for the reader to focus on procedural principles and concepts which have a fairly high probability of being utilized by the examiner in the framing of bar questions.
As he goes through the various concepts of procedural law, the student is reminded that the principles underlying criminal procedure, like those of any other procedural rule, are construed liberally to meet the demands of justice.
In our academic life we have always been beset by questions on matters involving consistency in the application of the rules. We have actually endeavored to show that there are no inconsistencies, and in order to fully appreciate the wisdom of Court decisions, the student must be aware that each case is decided in accordance with the facts and the issues raised by the parties.
While our concern for the academic needs of our law students supplied the motivation for us to start and complete this work, the invaluable participation of Atty. Ernesto C. Salao and Atty. Maria Theresa P. Cabayan in the publication of this work is sincerely acknowledged for without their tremendous encouragement, assistance, and editorial skills, this material would not have seen the light of day.
Lastly, the bar candidate and the law student is asked to consider this work as a humble recognition of their perseverance and their unwavering commitment to their future in the legal profession.
WILLARD B. RIANO Quezon City September
15, 2011
CONTENTS
Chapter I PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
I. BASIC CONCEPTS
Concept of criminal procedure ... 1
The adversarial or accusatorial system ... 2
Liberal interpretation of the rules... 3
Due process; mandatory ... 3
A. Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction ... 4
Requisites ... 4
Jurisdiction over the subject matter versus jurisdiction over the person of the accused ... 4
Jurisdiction over the territory; venue in criminal cases (Bar 1997) ... 5
When a court has jurisdiction to try offenses not committed within its territorial jurisdiction ... 6
B. Criminal Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter ... 10
Jurisdiction over the subject matter ... 10
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred ... 11
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined ... 12
Statute applicable to a criminal action ... 13
Use of the imposable penalty... 14
Principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing jurisdiction ... 14
Dismissal on jurisdictional grounds; special appearance ... 15
Raising the issue of jurisdiction for the first time in the Supreme Court ... 16
C. Criminal Jurisdiction Over the Person of The Accused (Bar 2008) ... 17
D. Injunction To Restrain Criminal Prosecution
(Bar 1999) ... 19
E. Mandamus to Compel Prosecution (Bar 1999) ... 20
II. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS A. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ... 21
B. Criminal Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court (RTC) ... 23
C. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (P.D. 1606, R.A. 7975 and R.A. 8249) ... 24
Offenses subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Bar 1997) ... 28
Officials and employees with a salary grade of "27" or higher ... 29
Officers falling below salary grade '27" ... 30
Salary grade alone does not determine jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan ... 33
A student regent of a state university is a public officer ... 34
Offenses committed in relation to the office ... 34
When the actual specific allegations of the intimacy between the offense and the official duties of the accused need not appear in the information ... 38
Anti-Money Laundering cases ... 40
Forfeiture cases ... 40
Summary procedure in criminal cases ... 40
Prohibited pleadings, motions and petitions in summary procedure (Bar 2004); civil and criminal case ... 42
III. SYNOPSIS OF THE CRIMINAL LITIGATION PROCESS Initial contact with the criminal justice system ... 43
Filing of the information or complaint and other processes ... 47
Implied institution of the civil action ... 48
Availment of provisional remedies ... 49
Bail ... 49
Arraignment; bill of particulars; suspension of arraignment ... 50
Quashal of complaint or information... 51
Pre-trial ... 51 Trial; demurrer ... 52 Judgment ... 53 Post-judgment remedies ... 53 Entry of judgment ... 54 Chapter II PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES (RULE 110) I. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS Purpose of a criminal action ... 55
How criminal actions are instituted (Bar 1999) ... 55
Institution of criminal actions in Manila and other chartered cities ... 56
No direct filing in the Regional Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila and other chartered cities ... 56
Effect of the institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period (Bar 1993) ... 57
Illustration of the above rules ... 57
Rule on prescription for violations of special laws and municipal ordinances ... 59
II. PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION Who must prosecute the criminal action; who controls the prosecution (Bar 1990; 2000) ... 67
Appearance of a private prosecutor ... 68
Effect of filing of an independent civil action on the right of the offended party to intervene in the prosecution of the offense ... 68
Consequences of the rule that a criminal action is prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor ... 69
Prosecution of a criminal action in the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court ... 74
Prosecution for violation of special laws ... ... 74
III. INTERVENTION OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION Intervention of the offended party... 75
When a private prosecutor may prosecute a case even in the absence of the public prosecutor ... 76
Extent of the authority given to the private prosecutor when duly authorized to prosecute
the action ... 77
IV. PROSECUTION OF "PRIVATE CRIMES" Prosecution of adultery and concubinage ... 77
Prosecution of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness ... 78
Effect of R.A. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) ... 78
Prosecution of Defamation ... 79
V. THE COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION Meaning of'complaint' ... 79
In whose name and against whom filed... 80
Meaning of 'information' (Bar 1994,1995,1996) ... 80
Distinctions between a complaint and an information (Bar 1999) ... 81
Infirmity in signature in the information ... 81
Sufficiency of the complaint or information ... 81
Test for sufficiency of the complaint or information ... 82
Questioning the insufficiency of the complaint or information ... 82
Objections as to form ... 83
Date of the commission of the offense ... 83
Determination of the nature and character of the crime ... ... 84
How to state the name of the accused ... 84
How to state the name of the offended party who is a natural person ... 85
How to state the name of the offended party which is a juridical person ... 85
Rule if the name of the offended party is unknown in offenses against property ... 85
Designation of the offense ... 86
Effect of failure to designate the offense by the statute or failure to mention the provision violated ... 87
Effect of failure to specify the correct crime ... 88
Statement of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances (Bar 2001)... 88
Cause of the accusation ... 92
How to state the date of the commission of the offense ... 96
Duplicity of the offense (Bar 2005) ... 97
VI. VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Rule where offense is committed in a train, aircraft
or vehicle ... 99 Rule where offense is committed on board a vessel ... 99 Rule when the offense is covered by Art. 2 of the
Revised Penal Code ... 100 How to state the place of the commission
of the offense ... 100 VII. AMENDMENT OR SUBSITUTION OF THE
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
Amendment of the information or complaint
before plea; no need for leave (Bar 2001; 2002) ... 100 When leave of court is required even if the amendment
is made before plea ... 100 Rule as to amendment made after the plea
of the accused ... 101 When an amendment is formal or substantial
(Bar 1997) ... 101 Substitution of complaint or information (Bar 2002) ... 104 Distinction between substitution and amendment
(Bar 1994) ... 104
Chapter III PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION (RULE 111)
Implied institution of the civil action with the
criminal action ... 107 Purposes of the criminal and civil actions ... 108 Judgment of conviction includes a judgment on the
civil liability ... 109 Who the real parties in interest are in the civil aspect
of the case ... 109 Rule applicable ... 109 When a civil action may proceed independently; independent civil actions and quasi-delicts
(Bar 2005) ... 109 Consequences of the independent character of actions
under Articles 32,33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code ... Ill When there is no implied institution of the civil action ... 112 Reservation of the civil action ... 113 No reservation of the civil action in Batas
Pambansa Big. 22 (Bar 2001; 2002) ... 113
When the separate civil action is suspended ... 114
Consolidation of the civil action with the criminal action ... 115
Suspension of the period of prescription ... ... 116
When no reservation is required; when civil action is not suspended... 116
Counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party claim in a criminal action ... 117
Rules on filing fees ... 118
Effect of death of the accused on the civil action ... 118
Novation: extinguishment of criminal liability ... 120
Effect of acquittal or the extinction of the penal action on the civil action or civil liability ... 120
Effect of payment of the civil liability ... 124
Effect of judgment in the civil case absolving the defendant ... 124
Subsidiary liability of employer ... 125
Concept of a prejudicial question (Bar 1999) ... 125
Reason for the principle ... 126
Requisites for a prejudicial question (Bar 1999) ... ... 126
Effect of the existence of a prejudicial question; suspension of the criminal action (Bar 1995; 1999; 2010)... . 128
Suspension does not include dismissal... 129
Where to file the petition for suspension ... 129
Case illustrations ... 130
Chapter IV PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Nature of preliminary investigation; purpose (Bar 1985; 1986; 1991; 1998; 2004) ... 143
Nature of the right to a preliminary investigation ... 145
Right to a preliminary investigation; waivable ... 150
Preliminary investigation vs. preliminary examination (preliminary inquiry) ... 150
Probable cause in preliminary investigation... 150
Kinds of determination of probable cause ... 152
Cases requiring a preliminary investigation; when not required (Bar 2004) ... 154
Procedure for cases not requiring a preliminary investigation ... 155
Direct filing with the prosecutor ... 155
Direct filing with the Municipal Trial Court ... 156
When preliminary investigation is not required even if the offense is one which normally requires
a preliminary investigation ... 157 Person arrested lawfully without a warrant may ask
for a preliminary investigation ... 158 Bail for a person lawfully arrested during the
preliminary investigation... 159 Questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation ... 160 Absence of preliminary investigation; effect on
jurisdiction of the court ... 162 Absence of preliminary investigation; not a ground
for motion to quash ... 162 Inquest proceedings... 162 Possible options of the inquest prosecutor ... 163
The inquest must pertain to the offense for which
the arrest was made ... 164 Who may conduct preliminary investigation and determine
existence of probable cause... 168 The procedure for preliminary investigation must
be strictly followed ... 171 Initial steps in preliminary investigation; filing of the
complaint for preliminary investigation ... 174 Dismissal of the complaint or issuance of a subpoena.... ... 175 Filing of counter-affidavit by the respondent; no motion
to dismiss ... 176 Action to be taken if the respondent does not submit
his counter-affidavit ... 176 Clarificatory hearing if necessary; no right of cross
examination ... ... 177 Determination by the investigating officer... 177 Discretion of prosecutor in filing of a criminal
complaint or information (Bar 1999) ... 177 Resolution of investigating prosecutor; certification
of preliminary investigation ... 178 Effect of the absence of the required certification
(Bar 1998) ... 179 Forwarding of the records of the case for action; need
for approval before filing or dismissal ... 179 Rule when recommendation for dismissal is disapproved ... 179 Motion for reconsideration ... 180
Appeals to the Secretary of Justice; filing a petition
for review ... 180 Rules of Court provisions when resolution is reversed
or modified by the Secretary of Justice ... 183
Power of the Secretary of Justice to reverse
resolutions of prosecutors ... 183
Assailing the resolution of the Secretary of Justice; petition for review under Rule 43 not allowed; Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 ... 184
Appeal to the Office of the President ... 187
Appeals under Rule 43 and Rule 45 ... 189
Records supporting the information or complaint filed in court ... 189
Action of the judge upon the filing of the complaint or information ... 189
When warrant of arrest is not necessary ... 191'
Withdrawal of the information already filed in court (Bar 1990; 2003) ... 192
Some judicial pronouncements on preliminary investigation ... 196
Chapter V ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE I. ARREST (RULE 113) Arrest; how arrest made ... 201
Requisites for the issuance of a warrant of arrest ... 202
Preliminary inquiry (examination) versus preliminary investigation ... 208
Method of arrest with a warrant; warrant need not be in possession of the officer ... 209
No unnecessary violence ... 210
Authority to summon assistance ... 210
When person to be arrested is inside a building ... 210
When a warrantless arrest is lawful (Bar 1988; 1989; 1996; 1997; 2000; 2004; 2010) ... 211
Who may make warrantless arrest; duty of officer; citizen's arrest... 212
The basis of the in flagrante delicto exception; requisites ... 213
Existence of an overt act of a crime in the presence of the person making the arrest... 214
The hot pursuit exception (Bar 1997; 2004) ... 220
Method of arrest without a warrant ... 222
Time of making an arrest ... 223
Rights of a person arrested (R.A. 7438) ... 223
Custodial investigation; expanded concept ... 224
Penalties under R.A. 7438 ... 224
Effect of an illegal arrest on jurisdiction of the court ... 224
Effect of admission to bail on objections to an illegal arrest ... 225
Waiver of the illegality of the arrest; effect of illegal arrest (Bar 2000; 2001) ... 225
Persons not subject to arrest ... 227
II. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (RULE 126) Nature of search warrant (Bar 1994)... 228
The Constitutional provision ... 229
Arrest distinguished from search and seizure ... 230
Definition of a search warrant under the Rules ... 231
Application for a search warrant; where to file ... 231
Search warrants involving heinous crimes and others ... 231
Ex parte application for a search warrant ... 233
Property subject of a search warrant ... 233
Requisites for the issuance of a search warrant ... 234
Probable cause in search warrants ... 235
Probable cause to arrest and probable cause to search ... 238
How the examination shall be conducted by the judge... 239
Particular description of place or person ... 241
Particular description of the items to be seized; general warrants (Bar 2005) ... 245
Ownership of property seized not required... 251
Extent of the search ... 252
Search of third persons not named in the warrant ... 253
Issuance and form of the search warrant ... 253
Duration of the validity of a search warrant ... 254
Time of making the search ... 254
Manner of making the search ... 254
Rule if the officer is refused admittance; "knock and announce rule" ... 255
Duties of the officer after the search and seizure; delivery and inventory ... 256
Duty of the judge; return and other proceedings... 256
Duty of the custodian of the log book ... 257
Objection to issuance or service of a warrant ... 257
Where to file a motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence ... 258
Who may assail the issuance of a search warrant ... 258
Petition for certiorari for unwarranted quashal of a search warrant ... 259
Exceptions to the search warrant requirement (Bar 1988; 1995; 1996; 1997; 2008)... 260
Search incident to a lawful arrest (Bar 2003) ... 262
Parameters of a search incident to a lawful arrest; immediate possession and control rule ... 263
Searches of moving vehicles ... 270
Check points ... 271
Buy bust operations; warrant not needed (Bar 2003) ... 273
Entrapment and instigation ... 274
Applicable tests in a buy-bust operation; adoption of the 'objective test' ... 275
Effect of absence of prior surveillance before a buy-bust operation ... 277
Effect of absence of record in police blotter ... 278
Plain view doctrine (Bar 2007; 2008) ... 278
The 'inadvertence' requirement under the plain view doctrine ... 283
Other cases ... 284
Terry searches or stop and frisk; history of the doctrine (Bar 1995; 2003) ... 290
Summary of the Terry doctrine ... 293
Terry search vs. a search incident to a lawful arrest ... 296
Bond to ensure the return of the seized items ... 297
Consented Searches... 298
Effect of an illegal search and seizure; fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (Bar 2005) ... 298
Civil damages; criminal liability ... 300
Authority of the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judge re search warrants in Manila and Quezon City ... 300
Chapter VI BAIL (RULE 114) Meaning, nature and purpose of bail (Bar 1998)... 302
Constitutional basis of the right to bail ... 304
Bail in the military ... . ... 306
Bail in extradition proceedings ... 306
Exception to the "no bail rule" in extradition proceedings ... 308
Purganan case re-examined ... 309
Bail in deportation proceedings ... 310
Who furnishes the bail ... 312
Obligation and right of the bondsman; arrest without a warrant ... 312
The applicant for bail must be in custody ... 313
Bail to guarantee appearance of witnesses (Bar 1999) ... 315
Bail for those not yet charged ... 315
Effects of failure to appear at the trial ... 316
Court cannot require arraignment before the grant of bail ... 317
Forms of bail (Bar 1999) ... 320
Guidelines in fixing the amount of bail (Bar 1999) ... 323
Duration of the bail ... 324
No release or transfer of person in custody; exceptions ...325
When bail is not required ... 325
When bail is not allowed ... 327
When bail is a matter of right (Bar 1999; 2006; 2008) ... 328
Remedy when bail is denied ... 329
When bail is a matter of discretion (Bar 1999; 2006; 2008) ... 329
Where application for bail is to be filed when bail is a matter of discretion and after conviction by the Regional Trial Court ... 331
When application for bail after conviction by the RTC shall be denied ... 332
Bail pending appeal where penalty imposed exceeds six years ... 333
Hearing of application for bail in offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment; burden of proof in bail application ... 334
Duties of the trial judge in a petition for bail in offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death ... 337
Evidence in bail hearing are automatically reproduced at the trial ... 339
Capital offenses ...339
Effect of Republic Act No. 9346 on the graduation of penalties ... 339
Where application or petition for bail may be filed (Bar 2002) ... 341
Increase or reduction of bail ... 343
Bail for accused originally released without bail ...343
Forfeiture of bail ... 343
Cancellation of the bail; remedy ... 344
Application for or admission to bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation... 345
Chapter VII RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (RULE 115) Rights of the accused at the trial (Bar 1992; 1996; 1998; 2004) ... 347
Presumption of innocence (Bar 2005) ... 348
Prima facie presumptions of guilt ... 349
Proof beyond reasonable doubt ... 351
Prosecution must rest on its own merits ... 354
Effect of failure to identify the perpetrator ... 355
Failure to comply with post-seizure procedures set by law ... 357
The equipoise rule ... 359
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation.... 360 Right to counsel of the accused and of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation; Republic Act No. 7438 (Bar 1990; 1991; 1998; 2002) ... 368
Meaning of custodial investigation; extended meaning ... 369
Rights of persons under custodial investigation; custodial investigation report ... 369
Right to choose a counsel is not plenary; right may be waived... 372
Competent and independent counsel ... 373
Right to counsel in administrative cases ... 376
Extrajudicial confessions; rights of persons under custodial investigation (Bar 2006) ... 377
Right to speedy trial; speedy disposition of cases (Bar 1996; 2002; 2007) ... 381
When right to speedy disposition of cases is violated ... 383
Purpose of time limits set by law or the rules; principle of speedy trial is a relative term ... 388
Remedy for a violation of the right to speedy trial ... 390
Factors for granting continuance ... 391
Guidelines to determine violation of the right to speedy trial and speedy disposition of cases; balancing test ... 391
Approaches to speedy trial ... 393
The privilege against self-incrimination
(Bar 1996; 1998; 2004; 2005) ... 396
The privilege applies only to natural persons ... 399
The privilege protects a person from testimonial compulsion or evidence of a communicative nature ... 400
Force re-enactments ... 405
Meaning of compulsion ... 406
Writing exemplars or samples ... 406
Questions which the witness may refuse to answer ... 410
Privilege extends to lawyers advising a witness to invoke the privilege ... 411
Persons who are mere custodians of documents cannot claim the privilege ... 412
Proceedings in which the privilege may be asserted ... 413
Distinctions between the claim of the privilege by an accused and by a mere witness ... 414
Waiver of the privilege ... 416
The privilege will not apply when witness is given immunity from prosecution ... 416
Immunity statutes; examples ... 418
The right to defend himself; right to be heard ... 421
The right to testify as a witness ... 422
The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him ... 423
Right to use testimony of a deceased witness ... 425
Right to compulsory process ... ... 425
Right to appeal ... 426
Chapter VIII ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA (RULE 116) A. BASIC CONCEPTS Meaning and importance of arraignment (Bar 2007) ... 428
Duty of the court before arraignment ... 429
Options of the accused before arraignment and plea ... 429
Plea made before a court with no jurisdiction ... 432
Arraignment under an amended information; substituted information ... 432
B. HOW ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA ARE MADE Where arraignment is to be made ... 433
How arraignment is made ... 433
When arraignment is to be made... 433
Arraignment after submission of the case
for decision ... 434
Record of arraignment ... 436
Presence of the accused ... 436
Presence of the offended party ... 436
When a plea of'not guilty' shall be entered (Bar 1992; 1993; 1996)... 436
Plea of guilty is a judicial confession; effect on aggravating circumstances ... 439
Exception to the admission of aggravating circumstances ... ... 440
Plea of guilty to a lesser offense; plea bargaining (Bar 1995; 2002) ... 440
Requisites for a plea of guilty to a lesser offense ... 441
Plea of guilty to a lesser offense after arraignment; plea bargaining during the trial proper ... 442
No need for amendment of information/complaint... 442
When plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not mitigating ... 443
Plea of guilty to a capital offense (Bar 1995) ... 443
Meaning of "searching inquiry" ... 445
Plea of guilty to a non-capital offense ... 448
Improvident plea of guilty ... 448
Production or inspection of material evidence ... 449
Chapter IX MOTION TO QUASH (RULE 117) Time for filing the motion to quash ... 451
Form and contents of the motion to quash ... 451
Motion to quash is not a demurrer to evidence; distinctions ... 451
Court shall consider only those grounds stated in the motion ... 453
Motion to quash; grounds for a motion to quash (Bar 1987; 1990; 1991; 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2000; 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005; 2009; 2010) ... 453
Execution of an affidavit of desistance is not a ground for a motion to quash ... 454
Absence of probable cause not a ground to quash an information ... 455
Matters of defense are not grounds for a motion to quash... 455
Absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground
to quash an information ... 455 Test in appreciating a motion to quash... 456 Effect of failure to assert any ground of a motion
to quash ... 457 Grounds not waived ... 458 Denial of a motion to quash ... 458 When court shall order the amendment of the
information or complaint ... 459 Order sustaining a motion to quash is not a bar
to another prosecution; exceptions (Bar 1994) ... 459 Double jeopardy ... 460 Effects of double jeopardy; on criminal
and civil aspects ... 462 Double jeopardy; requisites ... 465 Court must have competent jurisdiction ... 466
Curing an erroneous acquittal; grave abuse discretion of
amounting to lack jurisdiction ... 469 Preliminary investigation; double jeopardy
not applicable ... 474
Res judicata and double jeopardy; res judicata
in prison grey (Bar 2010).; ... 475 Administrative cases; double jeopardy not applicable ... 475 Valid complaint or information (Bar 2002; 2004) ... 477
Accused should have pleaded to the charge (should
have been arraigned) (Bar 2002; 2003) ... 479 The accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or terminated
without
his express consent ... 482 Dismissal or termination must be without the express
consent of the accused ... 485 Dismissals equivalent to acquittal even with the consent
of the accused; speedy trial; demurrer to evidence ... 487 Double jeopardy in quasi offenses ... 491
When double jeopardy shall not apply despite a prior
conviction (Bar 2005) ... 495 Meaning of same offense; when not the same
(Bar 1993; 1994) ... 496 Provisional dismissal; requisites (Bar 2003) ... 503
Time bar rule; when provisional dismissal becomes
permanent ... 506 Effect of People v. Lacson ... ... 507 Withdrawal of information distinguished from a
motion to dismiss ... 510
Chapter X
PRE-TRIAL, TRIAL AND DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (RULES 118-119)
A. PRE-TRIAL (RULE 118) (Bar 1986; 1989; 2004; 2008)
Courts in which pre-trial is mandatory ... 511 Matters to be considered during the pre-trial;
purposes ... 511 When pre-trial shall be held ... 512
Non-appearance in the pre-trial conference;
consequences ... 512 Duty of the Branch Clerk of Court ... 513 Recording of the minutes ... 513 Duty of the judge before the pre-trial conference ... 513
Duty of the judge when plea bargaining is agreed upon; prosecution and offended party
agree to the plea ... 513 Duty of the judge when plea bargaining fails ... 514 Asking questions during the pre-trial ... 514 Pre-trial agreements; signing of admissions made ... 514 Pre-trial order ... . ... 515 Pre-trial in a civil case vs. pre-trial in a
criminal case ... 515 Effect of pre-trial order... 516 Judicial dispute resolution (JDR); purposes ... 517
Stages in the judicial proceeding with JDR;
confidentiality ... 517 Cases subject to mediation for JDR ... 518 Salient features of the suggested JDR process ... 519 Court-annexed mediation guidelines ... 521 Discovery procedures in criminal cases ... 524 B. TRIAL (RULE 119)
When trial shall commence ... 526 Summary of periods ... 527 Time to prepare for trial ... 527 Effect of not bringing the accused to trial within
the prescribed period ... 528 Delays to be excluded from computing the period for
commencement of the trial;
some examples ... 528 When delay or suspension of trial is justified
by reason of the absence of a witness ... 529
Continuous trial ... 530 Trial period ... 530 Postponement or continuance ... 531 Factors to be considered for granting
continuances or postponements ... 531 Prohibited grounds for a continuance ... 531 Conditional examination of witnesses even
before trial ... 531 How to secure appearance of a material witness
(Bar 1994; 1999) ... 532 Discharge of accused to be a state witness;
requisites (Bar 1988; 1990; 1994; 2006)... 533 Evidence adduced during the discharge
hearing ... 534 Effect of discharge of an accused to be a
state witness; acquittal... 534 Mistake in charging the proper offense ... 534 Order of trial ... 535 Modification of the order of trial; reverse trial
(Bar 2007) ... 535 Reopening of the proceedings... 535 Trial in absentia (Bar 1998) ... 536 Instances when the presence of the accused
is required ... 537 Some rules on witness' credibility ... 538 Comments and questions of the judge during
the trial ... 538 Corpus delicti in criminal cases; murder
or homicide ... 539 Lack of formal offer of evidence during the trial ... 540 C. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (RULE 119)
Demurrer to evidence (Bar 1991; 1994; 1996; 2001;
2003; 2004; 2007; 2009) ... 540 Demurrer to evidence with leave of court
(Bar 2003) ... 541 Demurrer to evidence without leave of court ... 542 Not every motion to dismiss is a demurrer
to evidence ... 543 Granting of demurrer is an acquittal ... 544 Demurrer to evidence in a civil case vs. demurrer
to evidence in a criminal case (Bar 2007)... 545
Chapter XI
JUDGMENT, REMEDIES AFTER JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
I. JUDGMENT (RULE 120)
Meaning of judgment ... 546 Requisites of a judgment ... 546 Contents of a judgment of conviction; contents
of judgment of acquittal ... 548 Rule when there are two or more offenses in a single information or
complaint (duplicitous
complaint or information) ... 549 Judgment rendered by judge who did not hear
the case ... 550 Variance doctrine; variance between the allegation
and proof (Bar 1993; 2004) ... 550 When an offense includes or is included in another... 551 Variance in the mode of the commission of the offense... 551 Promulgation of judgment (Bar 1997) ... 552 How accused is to be notified of the promulgation ... 552 Rule if the accused fails to appear in the
promulgation of judgment ... 553 Modification of judgment (Bar 1989) ... 554 When judgment becomes final ... 554 Entry of judgment ... . ... 554 II. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 121)
Filing a motion for new trial or a motion for
reconsideration ... 554 Grounds for a new trial ... 555 Requisites for newly discovered evidence ... 555 Grounds for reconsideration of the judgment ... 556 Form of the motions; notice ... 556 Notice of the motion ... 556 When hearing of the motion is required ... 557 Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration ... 557 The Neypes rule ... 557 III. APPEALS (RULES 122,124,125) (Bar 1991; 1992; 1993; 1998)
Appeal not a natural right ... 558 Who may appeal ... 559 Subject matter for review on appeal ... 560
Change of theory on appeal ... 561 Factual findings; credibility of witnesses ... 561 Where to appeal ... 563 How to appeal ... 564 When appeal is to be taken ... 565 Service of notice of appeal ... 566 Transmission of the papers to appellate court (RTC)... 566 Withdrawal of appeal ... 566 Appeal not mooted by accused's release on parole ... 567 Effect of appeal by any of several accused (Bar 1998) ... 567 Appeal from the civil aspect ... 568 Period to apply for probation ... 568 Stay of execution ... 569 Power of the Court of Appeals to receive evidence ... 569 Dismissal of appeal by the Court of Appeals ... 569 Ground for reversal of judgment or its modification ... 570 Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals... 570 Applicability of the rules on appeal in the
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court ... 570 Rule if the opinion of the Supreme Court
en banc is equally divided ... 570 When preliminary attachment is available ... 572 IV. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES
Availability of provisional remedies ... 571 Synopsis of Selected Cases ... 574 Criminal Procedure Aspect of the Rules of Procedure
in Environmental Cases ... 600 Case Index ... 609
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
I. BASIC CONCEPTS Concept of criminal procedure
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. In the clear language of the Court, criminal procedure "regulates the steps by which one who committed a crime is to be punished"
(People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267).
While 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 the criminal laws.
2. Criminal procedure is "a generic term to describe the network of laws and rules which governs the procedural administration of justice" (Black's
Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1979). The procedure starts with the initial
contact of the alleged lawbreaker with the justice machinery including the investigation of the crime and concludes either with a judgment exonerating the accused or the final imposition of a penalty against him.
3. The enforcement of the criminal laws of the state inevitably leads to governmental intrusions into an individual's zones of privacy and how these intrusions can be reconciled with constitutional and statutory tenets protecting individual rights is an inescapable theme tackled in criminal procedure. Thus, in the prosecution for the violation of the penal laws,
2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION
criminal procedure has the imposing task of balancing clashing societal interests primarily between those of the government and those of the individual. Hence, a common thread among innumerable treatises on the subject is the tendency to describe criminal procedure in relation to its ultimate goal of harmonizing the governmental functions of maintaining and promoting law and order law while at the same time protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.
The adversarial or accusatorial system
1. The system of procedure in our jurisdiction is accusatorial or adversarial. It contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears them impartially and renders judgment only after trial (Queto v.
Catolico, 31 SCRA 52).
The system has a two-sided structure consisting of the prosecution and the defense where each side 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 in our jurisdiction as a complaint or an information, the allegations of which must be proven by the government beyond reasonable doubt. The government and the accused present their evidence before the court which shall decide either on acquittal or conviction of the accused. In its decision-making process, that court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The court in this system therefore, has a passive role and relies largely on the evidence presented by both sides to the action in order to reach a verdict.
2. The adversarial system should be distinguished from the
inquisitorial system where the court plays a very active role and is not limited
to the evidence presented before it. The court may utilize evidence gathered outside the court and a judge or a group of judges under this system actively participates in the gathering of facts and evidence instead of mere passively receiving information or evidence from the parties. The judge steers the course of the proceedings by directing and supervising the gathering of the evidence and the questioning of the witnesses to the case. The counsels in the
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 3
inquisitorial system have a less active role than in the adversarial system. Liberal interpretation of the rules
1. The rules on criminal procedure, being parts of the Rules of Court, shall be "liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding" (Sec.
6, Rule 1, Rules of Court).
2. In a case, petitioner's former counsel erroneously appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals instead of to the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner pleaded that Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court which mandated the dismissal of cases erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals be relaxed and the Court 6f Appeals be directed to forward the records of the case to the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court, in granting petitioner's prayer held that since the appeal involved a criminal case and the possibility of a person being deprived of liberty due to a procedural lapse is great, a relaxation of the Rules was warranted. 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 (Cenita M. Cariaga v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180010,
July 30, 2010).
Due process; mandatory
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." (Quotation
from Albert vs. University Publishing House, G.R. No. L-19118, January 30,1965)
Monte v. Savellano, Jr., 287 SCRA 245, enumerates the requirements
of due process in a criminal proceeding, to wit:
(a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;
4 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION
(b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused;
(c) that the accused is given opportunity to be heard; and
(d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing. A. Requisites For The Exercise of Criminal
Jurisdiction Requisites
A reading of jurisprudence and treatises on the matter discloses the following basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases (Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, 388 SCRA 72):
(a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) Jurisdiction over the territory; and
(c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Jurisdiction over the subject matter versus jurisdiction over the person of the accused
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case. One case, Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321
SCRA 551, mandates that the offense is one which the court
is by law authorized to take cognizance of.
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused refers to the authority of the court, not over the subject matter of the criminal litigation, 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" (Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; Cruz v.
Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 72; Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367).
CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
5
Jurisdiction over the territory; venue in criminal cases (Bar 1997)
1. This element requires that the offense must have been committed within the court's territorial jurisdiction (An- tiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321
SCRA 551). This fact is to be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or
information as regards the place where the offense charged was committed
(Fullero v. People, 533 SCRA 97).
In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall 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. Hence, if any one of these elements is proven to have occurred, let us say, in Pasay City, the proper court in that city has jurisdiction (Barrameda v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA
477).
2. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. Hence, 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 (Sec. 15 [a], Rule 110, Rules of
Court; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9,2009).
3. It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an essential element of jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The rule that the criminal action be instituted and tried in the court of the territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred is a fundamental principle, the purpose of which is not to compel the defendant to move to, and appear in, a different court from that of the province where the crime was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other evidence in another place (Campanano, Jr. v. Datuin,
536 SCRA 471, October 17, 2007; Bonifacio, et al. v. Regional Trial Court ofMakati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010).
6 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION
4. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory and if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction (Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No.
167764, October 9, 2009). It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an
essential element of jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the information (Campanano, Jr. v. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471; Macasaet v. People,
452 SCRA 255).
5. The concept of venue in actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional — for jurisdiction to be acquired in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court (Isip v.
People, 525 SCRA 735). Similarly, it has been held that the RTC of Manila has
no authority to issue a search warrant for offenses committed in Cavite (Sony
Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Supergreen, Inc., 518 SCRA 750).
When a court has jurisdiction to try offenses not committed within its territorial jurisdiction
The rule that the offense must be prosecuted and tried in the place where the same was committed admits of certain exceptions.
1. Where the offense was committed under the circumstances enumerated in Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense is cognizable before Philippine courts even if committed outside of the territory of the Philippines. In this case, the offense shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed (Sec. 15[d], Rule 110, Rules of Court).
Under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced not only within
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 7
the Philippine Archipelago but also outside of its jurisdiction against offenders who:
Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned above; While being public officers and employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations.
Included in crimes against national security are the crimes of (i) treason, (ii) conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, (iii) misprision of treason, (iv) espionage, (v) inciting to war and giving motives for reprisal, (vi) violation of neutrality, (vii) correspondence with hostile country, and (viii) flight to enemy's country (Articles 114-121, Revised Penal Code).
Crimes against the law of nations are piracy and mutiny described under Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code and qualified piracy under Article 123 thereof.
2. Where the Supreme Court, pursuant to its constitutional powers orders a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice
(Section 5[4J, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines).
3. Where an 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 where the offense was committed. It may be instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or territory where said train, aircraft, or vehicle passed during its trip. The crime
8 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION
may also be instituted and tried in the place of departure and arrival (Section
15[b], Rule 110, Rules of Court).
4. Where an 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 (Section 15[c], Rule 110, Rules of Court).
5. Where the case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction of which depends upon the nature of the offense and the position of the accused (Subido v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122641, January 20,
1997), the offense need not be tried in the place where the act was
committed but where the court actually sits in Quezon City.
Under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan), when the greater convenience of the accused and of
the witnesses, or other compelling considerations so require, a case originating from one geographical region may be heard in another geographical region. For this purpose, the presiding justice shall authorize any divisions of the court to hold sessions at any time and place outside Metro Manila and, where the interest of justice so requires, outside the territorial boundaries of the Philippines.
6. Where the offense is written defamation, the criminal action need not necessarily be filed in the RTC of the province or city where the alleged libelous article was printed and first published. It may be filed in the province or city where the offended party held office at the time of the commission of the offense if he is a public officer, or in the province or city where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense in case the offended party is a private individual (Article 360, Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act No. 1289 and Republic Act No. 4363; Bar 1995J.
7. The case of Agbayani v. Sayo, 89 SCRA 699, restated Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code (written defamation) as follows:
CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
9
(a) Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action maybe filed in the Court of First Instance (RTC) of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published.
(b) If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance (RTC) of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.
(c) If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance (RTC) of Manila.
(d) If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance (RTC) of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense (Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009).
One recent case held that if the circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first published is used by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.
In a case pertaining to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet, the place where the material was first accessed cannot be equated with "printing and first publication." This interpretation would, said the Court, "spawn the very ills that the amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would ensue in situations where the website's author or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the
10 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION
Philippines that the private complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website. For the Court to hold that the amended information sufficiently vested jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply because the defamatory article was accessed therein would open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where the x x x website is likewise accessed or capable of being accessed" (Bonifacio, et al. v. Regional Trial Court of
Makati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5,2010).
Merely alleging that "the newspaper is a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region" did not establish that the said publication was first printed and first published in Iloilo City (Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9,2009).
Also, merely alleging that the offended party is a physician and medical practitioner in a particular place does not clearly and positively indicate that said person is residing in such place at the time of the commission of the crime. One who transacts business in a place and spends a considerable time thereat does not render such person a resident therein (Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No.
167764, October 9,2009).
B. Criminal Jurisdiction Over The Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the subject matter
1. Generally, jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority
to hear and determine a cause — it is a question of law (Gomez v. Montalban,
548 SCRA 693). The term imports the power and 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 the judgment (21 C.J.S., Courts, § 2, 1990).
Specifically, criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it (Antiporda, Jr. v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551).
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and
CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
11
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
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law (Durisol
Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121106, February 20,2000; Magno v. People, G.R. No. 171542, April 6, 2011). It is the law that confers
jurisdiction and not the rules (Padunan v. DARAB, G.R. No. 132163, January
28, 2003). The rule is that in order to ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction
or not, the provisions of law shall be inquired into (Soller v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 144261-62, May 9, 2001).
When the law confers jurisdiction, that conferment must be clear. It cannot be presumed. It must clearly appear from the statute or will not be held to exist (De Jesus v. Garcia, 19 SCRA554).
2. Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of the parties. In determining whether or not a case lies within or outside the jurisdiction of a court, reference to the applicable statute on the matter is indispensable (Tolentino v. Social Security
Commission, 138 SCRA 428; De la Cruz v. Moya, 160 SCRA 838).
3. Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, 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
(Fukuzume v. People, 474 SCRA 570).
4. Since jurisdiction is conferred by law, it is not conferred by mere administrative policy of any trial court (Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA
12 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE BAR LECTURES SERIES UPDATED EDITION
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
1. While jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law, jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Hence, "(I)n order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, 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. 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).
2. The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information and once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case (Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA
255; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009). It is the averments
in the information which characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried (Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA
51).
3. "The jurisdiction of the court is defined by the Constitution or statute. The elements of that definition must appear in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over a case. Hence, the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial" (Larson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298). It was held however, that if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction (Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255 as cited in Foz, Jr.
v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009).
Thus, in criminal cases, the court must examine the complaint for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out and the punishment provided by law for such act,