CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
 Tools to facilitate attainment of justice. Any rigid and
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
I. BASIC CONCEPTS
CONCEPT OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 Treats of the series of processes or methods by which
criminal laws are enforced and by which State
prosecutes persons who violate the laws.
 Regulates steps by which one who committed a crime is
to be punished
 Starts from initial contact of the alleged lawbreaker
with the justice machinery including investigation of
crime and concludes either with judgment exonerating
accused or final imposition of a penalty against him.
 Goal is to harmonize governmental functions of
o Maintaining and promoting law and order,
and
o Protecting constitutional rights of its citizens.
CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Defines crimes and Lays down process by which
prescribes punishment for an offender is made to
such crimes answer for violation of
criminal laws
ADVERSARIAL OR ACCUSATORIAL SYSTEM
 System of procedure in our jurisdiction
 Contending parties before a court that hears them
impartially and renders judgment only after trial.
 Two- sided structure - prosecution and defense each try
to convince court that its position is correct version of
the truth.
 Court has a passive role in the decision making process.
It will not consider evidence that has not been formally
offered, but will rely largely on evidence presented by
both sides to reach the verdict
 Process
o Complaint or information is filed – formal
indictment with allegations, which must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
o Government and accused present evidence
before court
o Court decides on acquittal or conviction
INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM
 Court plays an active role and is not limited to evidence
presented before it. The court may utilize evidence
gathered outside the court.
 Judges actively participate in the proceedings by
directing and supervising gathering of facts and
evidence and questioning of witnesses to the case
 Counsels have less active role
LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES
 Liberally construed in order to promote objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding1
1 2
Sec. 6. Rule 1 – Construction
strict application that results in technicalities tending to
frustrate substantial justice must be avoided.
DUE PROCESS; MANDATORY AND INDISPENSABLE
– law which hears before it condemns and proceeds upon
inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
Requirements of due process 2 – Alonte v. Savellano
1. Court or tribunal trying case is properly clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter before
it
2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by the court over
person of the accused
3. Accused is given opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing
REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION
Requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over a
criminal case
1. Jurisdiction over subject matter
2. Jurisdiction over territory
3. Jurisdiction over person of the accused
Over subject matter Over person of the accused
Refers to the authority of Authority of the court over the
court to hear and person charged, not over the
determine a particular subject matter of the litigation
criminal case
Offense is one which the Requires that the person charged
court is by law with the offense must have been
authorized to take brought in to its form for trial,
cognizance of forcibly by warrant of arrest or
upon voluntarily submission to
the court
Jurisdiction over the territory; Venue in criminal cases
 For jurisdiction to be acquired by a court in a criminal
case/ for a court to prosecute and try and offense, the
offense should have been committed or any one of its
essential ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
 Territorial jurisdiction – territory (geographical
elements) where court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense alleged committed
therein by the accused
 Action shall be instituted & tried in the court of
municipality or territory wherein offense was
committed or where any of the essential ingredients
took place
 Jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information
 Purpose is not to compel the defendant to move to, and
appear in a different court from that of the province
where crime was committed as it would cause him great
Alonte v. Savellano
1
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other
evidence in another place
 Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is
jurisdiction in criminal cases, unlike civil cases.
 Court cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged
with an offense allegedly committed outside of that
limited territory. If evidence adduced during trial
shows that the offense was committed somewhere else,
the court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction.
General Rule: - For jurisdiction to be acquired by a court in
a criminal case/ for a court to prosecute and try and offense,
the offense should have been committed or any one of its
essential ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Exception to the general rule: When offense does not have to
be tried in the court of the municipality where the act was
committed
 Crime committed outside Philippines but under Art. 2 3
of RPC shall be cognizable by court where criminal
action if first filed
 Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or
other public or private vehicle
o May be instituted and tried in court of any
municipality or territory where vehicle passed
during its trip.
o May also be instituted and tried in place of
departure and arrival
 Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the
course of its voyage, criminal action shall be instituted
and tried not necessarily in place of commission of
crime
o May be brought and tried in court of first port
of entry or
o Municipality or territory where vessel passed
during the voyage 4
 Where SC, pursuant to its constitutional powers orders
a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage
of justice 5
 Cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan
o Jurisdiction depends on nature of offense and
position of accused
3
Art. 2. Provisions of the RPC shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago but also outside of its jurisdiction against
offenders who a. should commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship b. should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by
the Government c. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these Islands of obligations and securities
mentioned above d. While being public officers and employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions e. Should
commit any of the crimes against national security (treason,
conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, misprision of treason,
espionage, inciting to war and giving motives for reprisal, violation
of neutrality, correspondence with hostile country, flight to enemy’s
country) and law of nations (piracy, qualified piracy and mutiny)
4
Sec. 15 d Rule 110. Place where action is to be instituted.
5
Sec 5(4) Article 8 Constitution
o When the greater convenience of the accused
and of the witness or other compelling
considerations require, a case originating
from one geographical region may be heard in
another geographical region.
 For this purpose, 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
requires, outside the territorial
boundaries of the Philippines 6
 Written defamation- criminal action need not
necessarily be filed in RTC of province or city where
alleged libelous article was printed and first published7 -
Agbayani v. Sayo
Whether offended party criminal action may be filed in
is public official or RTC of province or city where
private person, libelous article is printed and
first published
6
Sec 2 of RA 8249 An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan
7
Art 360 RPC. Persons responsible. Any person who shall publish,
exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business
manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall
be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That
where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is
in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense,
the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of
Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed
and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold
office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time
of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is
printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is
a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time
of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is
printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action
shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and
vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal
action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided, finally,
That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations,
the civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the
time of the effectivity of this law.Preliminary investigation of
criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the
chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the
province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of
the province where such action may be instituted in accordance with
the provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation
of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought
except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the
offended party.
2
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Offended party is a RTC of province where he
private individual actually resided at time of
commission of offense
Offended party is a RTC of Manila
public officer whose
office is in Manila at
time of commission of
offense
If offended party is a RTC of province or city where
public officer outside of he held office at time of
Manila commission of the offense
o Information must allege with particularity
where defamatory article was printed and first
published as evidenced by address of their
offices
o Mere allegation that the offended party
transacts business in a place and spends
considerable time thereat does not render such
person a resident therein.
o In cases pertaining to defamatory material on
the internet, the place where the material was
first accessed cannot be equated with printing
and first publication
 Reason: Opens floodgates to libel
suit being filed in all other
locations where site is accessed or
capable of being accessed
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER
Jurisdiction over subject matter
 Authority to hear and try a particular offense and
impose the punishment for it
 Power to hear and determine cases of the general class
to which the proceeding in question belongs
 Power to deal with the general subject involved in the
action
 Jurisdiction of the class of cases to which a particular
case belongs
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law
o To ascertain jurisdiction , provisions of law
shall be inquired into
o When law confers jurisdiction, conferment
must be clear. It cannot be presumed. Must
clearly appear from statute.
 Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the will of the parties
nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of the
parties
 Cannot be conferred by accused, expressed waiver or
otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organized the court and is
given only by law in manner and form prescribed by
law
How jurisdiction over subject matter is determined
 Jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. Jurisdiction
over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information.
o To determine the jurisdiction of the court in
criminal cases, the complaint or information
must be examined for purpose of ascertaining
if the facts and punishment provided for by
law for such acts fall within the jurisdiction of
the court in which the criminal action is filed
o If facts set out in the complaint or information
are sufficient to show court has jurisdiction,
that court has jurisdiction
o If evidence adduced during trial shows that
the offense was committed somewhere else,
court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction
 The jurisdiction of the court is defined by Constitution
or statute. Elements of that definition must appear in
complaint or information to ascertain which court has
jurisdiction over a case.
 In cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan, both nature of
offense and position occupied by accused are conditions
sine qua non before Sandiganbayan can validly take
cognizance of the case
 Complex crimes – jurisdiction is with the court having
jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable on offense
Statute applicable to a criminal action
 Criminal action is determined by law in force at time of
institution of the action
 Not during the arraignment of the accused nor at time of
commission even if penalty that may be imposed at
time of its commission is less and does not fall under
the court’s jurisdiction
Use of imposable penalty
 In determining if court has jurisdiction over an offense,
the penalty, which may be imposed, and not the actual
penalty imposed after trial is considered.
 Jurisdiction is not determined by what may be meted
out to the offender after trial or result of the evidence
that would be presented at the trial, but the extent of the
penalty which law imposes for offense, on basis of facts
alleged in information or complaint.
Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction or Continuing
Jurisdiction
 Once a court has acquired jurisdiction over a
controversy, jurisdiction continues until the court done
all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction/ until
final determination of the case
 Not affected by subsequent legislation vesting
jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal
 Cannot be lost by a new law amending rules of
jurisdiction  General Rule: Statues altering
jurisdiction of a court cannot be applied to cases already
pending prior to their enactment
o Exception: when statute expressly so provides
or is construed to the effect that it is intended
3
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
to operate upon actions pending before its
enactment
 Once vested, it cannot be withdrawn of defeated by
subsequent valid amendment of information
 Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any
disposition of the case such as dismissal or continuance
rests on the sound discretion of the court
o Even if prosecution files a motion to
withdraw information, court may grant or
deny in faithful exercise of judicial
prerogative
Flores v. Sumaljag - In a case involving a public official,
court does not loose jurisdiction just because official ceases
to be in office during the pendency of the case
Dismissal on jurisdictional grounds; special appearance
 Objection based on the ground that court lacks
jurisdiction over subject matter may be raised or
considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or appeal
 Special appearance before court to challenge
jurisdiction over the person is not tantamount to
estoppel or waiver of objection and is not a voluntary
submission to jurisdiction of the court.
Raising the issue of jurisdiction for the first time in the SC
 General Rule: Jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot
be conferred or waived.
o Accused is not precluded from raising issue
of jurisdiction of trial court even on appeal
o Issue of jurisdiction may be raised or
considered motu proprio by court at any stage
of the proceedings or on appeal
o Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be
conferred upon the court by the accused, by
express waiver or otherwise, since jurisdiction
is conferred by the sovereign authority which
organized by the court and is given only by
law in manner and form prescribed by law
 Exception: Doctrine of Estoppel - Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy
o A party cannot invoke jurisdiction of the
court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.
o While jurisdiction of a tribunal may be
challenged at any time, sound public policy
bars one from doing so after their having
procured that jurisdiction, speculating on the
fortunes of litigation.
o A party may be estopped from questioning
the jurisdiction of the court for reasons of
public policy as when he initially invokes the
jurisdiction of the court and then later on
repudiates that same jurisdiction.
o After voluntarily submitting a cause and
encountering an adverse decision on the
merits, it is too late for the loser to question
the jurisdiction or power of the court.
o Factual circumstances must justify the
application of the bar by laches
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
THE ACCUSED
 Jurisdiction over person of accused is acquired upon
arrest or apprehension, with or without warrant, or
voluntary appearance or submission to jurisdiction of
the court.
 General Rule: Seeking affirmative relief is deemed to
be a submission to the jurisdiction of the court.  Acts
seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary
appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the
court.
 Voluntary submission of accused to jurisdiction of court
may be effected by
o filing a motion to quash
o appearing for arraignment
o participating in trial
o giving bail
 Tantamount to submission of
person to jurisdiction of court
 Ex. even if warrant of arrest issued
is null and void, one cannot assert
that the court never acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the
accused if the accused posts bail.
 defendant in effect waived rights
to object by appearing and giving a
bond
 Accused is deemed to have waived
his constitutional protection against
illegal arrest when he enters into a
counsel assisted plea because he
actively participated in trial and
presenting of evidence.
 Exception: Not all acts seeking affirmative relief
constitute a voluntary appearance or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court
o Special appearance to question jurisdiction of
the court over the person of the accused is not
a voluntary appearance
o Ex. motion to quash due to lack of
jurisdiction or motion to quash warrant of
arrest. It is the very legality of court process
forcing the submission of the person of the
accused is the very issue in a motion to quash
warrant of arrest
Custody of the law
 Restraint on the person, who is deprived of his own will
and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will
of the law. Literally the custody over the body of the
accused and it includes but is not limited to detention
 Custody of the law is not necessarily jurisdiction of the
court
o One can be under custody of law but not yet
subject to jurisdiction of court over his person
 Ex. One is arrested by virtue of
warrant and he files a motion to
4
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
quash the warrant before
arraignment
o One can also be subject to jurisdiction of
court over his person and not yet be in
custody of the law
 Ex. accused escapes custody after
trial commenced
D. INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION
 General Rule: Court will not issue writs of prohibition
or injunction, preliminary or final to enjoin or restrain
criminal prosecution. Nor will injunction lie when the
case is still at the stage of preliminary investigation or
reinvestigation
 Exceptions
o Injunction is necessary to afford adequate
protection to constitutional rights of accused
o Necessary for orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression multiplicity of
actions
o When there is a prejudicial question which is
subjudice
o When acts of officer are without or in excess
of authority
o Where the prosecution is under an invalid
law, ordinance or regulation
o When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
o Where the court has no jurisdiction over the
offense
o Where it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution
o Where charges are manifestly false and
motivated by lust for vengeance
o When there is clearly no prima facie case
against the accused and a motion to quash on
that ground has been denied
E. MANDAMUS TO COMPEL PROSECUTION
 Mandmus – remedial measure for parties aggrieved
which shall be issued when any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person unlawfully neglects
performance of an act which law specifically enjoins as
a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.
 General rule: Public prosecutor is afforded wide latitude
of discretion in conduct of preliminary investigation.
Mandamus will not lie.
o Discretionary on part of prosecutor to
determine which persons appear responsible
for the commission of a crime.
o However, the moment he finds one to be
liable, it becomes his inescapable duty to
charge him and to prosecute him for the same
 rule loses its discretionary character and
becomes mandatory.
 Exception: Judicial review is allowed where
respondent clearly established that the prosecutor
committed grave abuse of discretion
o Meaning he exercises his discretion in an
arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, patent and gross enough as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
law
o If despite sufficiency of evidence before
prosecutor, he refuses to file the
corresponding information against the person
responsible, he abuses his discretion because
is act is a deliberate refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law
II. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS
A. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
AND METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT – except cases
falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC
and Sandiganbayan
 Exclusive Original Jurisdiction (EOJ) over all violations
of city or municipal ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction8
 EOJ over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years irrespective of amount of fines, and
regardless of other imposable or accessory penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such offenses
irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount 9
o Rule disregarding amount of fine and other
accessory penalties in determining
jurisdiction applies if offense is punishable by
imprisonment or fine or both but not when
offense is punishable by fine only
o MTC never has jurisdiction over offenses
punishable within imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years/6 years below if law vests
jurisdiction in RTC or Sandiganbayan
o Based on Art 27 of RPC10
 MTC has jurisdiction over offenses
punishable by up to maximum of
8
BP 129 Sec 32(1)
9
BP 129 Sec 32(2)
10
Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person sentenced to any of
the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the
penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct
or some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief
Executive as unworthy of pardon.
Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
from twelve years and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the
penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be
from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty
of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case
its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of
the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall
be from six months and one day to six years, except when
suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its
duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall
be from one month and one day to six months.
Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall
be from one day to thirty days.
Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be
required to cover such period of time as the court may determine.
5
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
prision correcional, which shall not
exceed 6 years.
 However, there are offenses which
are not cognizable by MTC even if
punishable by prision correcional
because of express provisions of
law such as
 libel - punishable by
prision correcional in its
minimum and medium
periods or a fine ranging
from 200 to 6000 or both
however Art 360:
criminal action as well as
civil action for such
criminal offense shall be
filed simultaneously or
separately with the RTC
 forms of direct and
indirect bribery – private persons in conspiracy with such public
punishable by prision
correcional in its medium
period are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan
 Where only penalty provided for by law is a fine, the
amount shall determine the jurisdiction of the court
under original provisions of BP 129  MTC shall have
EOJ over offenses punishable with a fine of not more
than 4K
 EOJ over offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence
 Violations of BP 22 Bouncing Checks Law
 Summary procedure in the following cases
o violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations, violations of rental law and
violations of municipal or city ordinances
o all other criminal cases where penalty
prescribed by law for offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a
fine not exceeding 1K or both, irrespective of
other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or the civil liability arising
therefrom
o offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence where imposable
fine does not exceed 10K
 special jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail in
criminal cases in absence of all RTC judges in province
or city
B. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT
 EOJ in all criminal cases not within EOJ of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
 Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the
MTC within its territorial jurisdiction
 Special jurisdiction to handle exclusively criminal cases
as designated by SC
 Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws
such as
o Written Defamation
o Jurisdiction of designated courts over cases in
violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002
o Violations of intellectual property rights
o public prosecutor has the authority to file a
criminal information for violation of PD 957
REGULATING THE SALE OF
SUBDIVISION LOTS AND
CONDOMINIUMS, PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREO
and the RTC has the power to hear and
adjudicate the action, the penalty being a 20K
fine and imprisonment not exceeding 10 year
or both such fine and imprisonment.
 Jurisdiction in Money laundering Cases
o those committed by public officers and
officers shall be under jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan
C. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN PD 1606, RA 7975, RA 8249)
 set by PD 1606 as Amended 11
o PD 1606 –creating a special court to be
known as "sandiganbayan" and for other
purposes
o RA 7975- an act to strengthen the functional
and structural organization of the
sandiganbayan, amending for that purpose
presidential decree no. 1606, as amended
o RA 8249 - an act further defining the
jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan, amending
for the purpose presidential decree no. 1606,
as amended, providing funds therefor, and for
other purposes
 Section 4 provides
A Violations of RA 3019 as amended aka Anti Graft and
Corruption Practices Act, An act declaring forfeiture in
favor of the state any property found to have been
unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee
and providing for the proceedings therefor,
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE-
Bribery 12 - where one or more of the accused are
officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether 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 of the Compensation and Positions
Classification Class of 1989, including
(regardless of salary grade, the following are
under the jurisdiction of the SB if the offense
is related to the office)
11
Not RA 3019 - Anti Graft And Corrupt Practices Act As Amended
12
Direct Bribery, Indirect Bribery, Corruption of public officials
6
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
a. Provincial governors, vice
governors, members of the
sangguniang panlalawigans, and
provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other provincial
department heads
b. city mayors, vice mayors, members
of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurer, assessors, engineers, and
other city department heads
c. officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of the consul
and higher
d. Philippine army and air force
colonels, naval captains and all
officers of higher rank
e. officers of PNP while occupying
the position of provincial director
and those holding rank of senior
superintendent or higher
f. city and provincial prosecutors and
their assistants and officials and
prosecutors in office of
ombudsmand and special
prosecutor
g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government owned or
controlled corporations, state
universities or educational
institutions or foundations
2. Members of Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade 27 and up
3. Members of judiciary without prejudice to
Constitution provisions
4. Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions without prejudice to provisions
of the Constitution
5. All other national and local officials classified
as Grade 27 and higher
B Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed
with other crimes committed by public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection a in relation to their
office
C Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with EO 1,2, 14 and 14-1 (civil jurisdiction)
 Cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher,
or military and PNP officers mentioned above  EOJ
shall be vested in proper RTC, MeTC, MTC pursuant to
their respective jurisdictions
 Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of RTC whether in exercise of
own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
jurisdiction as herein provided
 EOJ over petitions for issuance of writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and
other ancilliary writs and processes in aid of appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature,
including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in
cases filed or which may be filed under EO 1,2,14 and
14-A provided that these petitions shall not be exclusive
of the SC
 Procedure prescribed in BP 129 and implementing rules
that SC promulgated relative to appeals and petitions
for review to CA shall apply to appeals and petitions for
review filed with the Sandiganbayan
 The Ombudsman thru its special prosecutor shall
represent the People of the Philippines in all cases
elevated to SB and all cases elevated from SB to SC
o exception: EO 1, 2, 14 and 14-A
 In case private individuals are charged as co principals,
accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
employee, they shall be tried JOINTLY with said public
officers and employees in proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them
LAW PRIOR TO RA 8249: RA 7975 amending PD 1606
 old law conferred jurisdiction of SB over certain
specified offenses where one or more of the principal
accused are officials occupying positions enumerated in
law
 significant amendment  removal of the word principal
 now reads where one or more of the accused
o one of the accused no longer has to be a
principal accused
o may simple be an accomplice or an accessory
o not all of the accused need to be those
officials mentioned in law – sufficient that at
least of them be an official occupying any of
the positions enumerated.
Offenses subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan -
SB is not confined to violations of Anti Grade and Corrupt
Practices Act
 Violations of Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of State Any Property
Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any
Public Officer or Employee
 RPC laws on bribery and corruption of public officers
 Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complex
with other crimes, committed by public officials in Sec
4 letter a in relation to their office
o Officials of the executive branch occupying
the positions of regional director and higher
 otherwise classified as Grade 27 and
higher of the Compensation and Positions
Classification Class of 1989, including
(regardless of salary grade, the following are
under the jurisdiction of the SB if the offense
is related to the office)
 Provincial governors, vice
governors, members of the
sangguniang panlalawigans, and
provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other provincial
department heads
 city mayors, vice mayors, members
of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurer, assessors, engineers, and
other city department heads
7
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
 officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of the consul
and higher
 Philippine army and air force
colonels, naval captains and all
officers of higher rank
 officers of PNP while occupying
the position of provincial director
and those holding rank of senior
superintendent or higher
 city and provincial prosecutors and
their assitants and officials and
prosecutors in office of
ombudsmand and special
prosecutor
 Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government owned or
controlled corporations, state
universities or educational
institutions or foundations
o Members of Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade 27 and up
o Members of judiciary without prejudice to
Constitution provisions
o Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions without prejudice to provisions
of the Constitution
o All other national and local officials classified
as Grade 27 and higher
 Civil and Criminal offenses filed pursuant and in
connection with EO 1, 2, 14 and 14 A re: sequestration
cases
Serana v. Sandiganbayan Jan 22 2008
 SB has jurisdiction over felonies committed by public
officials in relation to office.
 SB has jurisdiction over an estafa case if
o Offense is committed by a public of official
or an employee mentioned in Sec 4 par a.
o Offense is committed in relation to his office
Pactolin v. SB 2008 - Falsification of a public document
under RPC is within jurisdiction of SB
Officials and employees with salary grade of 27 or higher
 For SB to have jurisdiction over a case, it is not
necessary that one or more of the officials charged has a
salary grade of 27 or higher.
 Salary grade 27 refers only to the following officials
(those not enumerated in a to g to Sec 4 a1
o officials of executive branch, occupying
position of regional director and higher
o Members of Congress or officials thereof
o All other national and local offices
 Salary grade of 27 has no reference to those specifically
enumerated under Sec 4a1 a- g. The following officials
are subject to the jurisdiction of SB regardless of salary
grade.
o Provincial governors, vice governors,
members of the sangguniang panlalawigans,
and provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other provincial department
heads
o city mayors, vice mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurer,
assessors, engineers, and other city
department heads
o officials of the diplomatic service occupying
the position of the consul and higher
o Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains and all officers of higher rank
o officers of PNP while occupying the position
of provincial director and those holding rank
of senior superintendent or higher
o city and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants and officials and prosecutors in
office of ombudsmand and special prosecutor
o Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers
of government owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations
 if the accused does not belong to the national and local
officials enumerated, in order for the SB to acquire
jurisdiction, the same must be classified as Grade 27
and higher aside from other officials expressly covered.
Inding v. Sandiganbayan - Congress intended these officials,
regardless of salary grades to be specifically included within
the SB’s original jurisdiction, for had it been otherwise, there
would have been no need for such enumeration. This
conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that some of the
officials enumerated in a to g are not classified as SG 27 or
higher under the Position Titles and Salary Grades of
Department of Budget and Management.
Officers below salary grade 27
Geduspan v. People
 G was Director of Region Vi of Philhealth but was not
occupying the position of Regional Director, but that of
Department of Manager A in accordance with her
appointment papers. G claims that said position is
under salary grade 26 and therefor not within the
jurisdiction of SB.
 ISSUE: Whether or not SB has jurisdiction over a
regional director or manager of GOCC for the Anti
Graft and Corrupt practices act
 HELD: It is the appointment paper and notice of salary
adjustment that determine the classification of her
position as Department Manager A of Philhealth. G
held the position at time of commission of offense and
said position is among those enumerated in par 1 g Sec
4A – Managers of GOCC.
 It is of no moment that the petitioner was merely
classified as SG26. It is of no moment that the position
was SG26. While the first part covers only officials of
Executive branch with salary grade 27 or higher, the
second party specifically includes other executive
officials whose positions may not be grade 27 but who
are by express provision by law placed under
jurisdiction.
People v. Sandiganbayan GR 169004
8
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
 Sangguinang Panglungsod was charged for failing to
liquidate certain cash advances made in violation of
Auditing Code of Philippines
 ISSUE: Whether or not SB has jurisdiction over
Sangguinang Panglungsod whose salary grade is below
27 and charged with violation of Audition Code
 Other offenses or felonies commited by the following in
relation to their office also fall under the jurisdiction of
SB
o Provincial Governors and Vice Governors
o Members of Sangguiniang Panlalawigan
o Provincial treasueres, assesors and other
provincial department heads
o City mayors and vice mauprs
o members of sanguiniang panglungsod
o City treasurers, assesors, engineers and other
city deparment heads
o Officials of diplomatic service occupying
position as consul and higher
o Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains and all officers of higher rank
o PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of
higher rank
o City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants in Office of Ombudsman and
special prosecutor
o Presidents, directors or trustees or managers
of GOCC, state universities, educational
institutions or foundations
People v. Sandiganbayan GR 167304
 ISSUE: Whether or not member of Sangguniang
Panglungsod under SG26 charged with violation of
Auditing Code for failure to liquidate cash advances
falls within jurisdiction of SB.
 HELD: those classified as Grade 26 and below may still
fall within jurisdiction of SB provided that they hold the
position enumerated in the law and the felony or
offense is in relation to their office
 Thus, those specifically enumerated can be charged
with
o Anti Graft and Corruption
o Bribery and Corruption under RPC
o offenses or felonies in relation to their office
 As long as the offense charged is intimately connected
with the office and is alleged to have been perpetrated
while accused was in performance of his official
functions, he is held to have been indicted in relation to
his office.
Salary grade alone does not determine jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan
 First Part of Sec 4(a) covers only officials with salary
grade 27 or higher
 Second Part of Sec 4(a) specifically includes other
executive officials whose positions may not be with
salary grade 27 or higher but who are by express
provision of law placed under jurisdiction of said court
People v. Montejo
 Mayor Brown, Det. Pollisco, Patrolman Lacema, and
other co-accused where charged with murder. Mayor
and his "organized groups of police patrol and civilian
commandoes" whom he "armed with pistols and high
power guns" established a camp which they called as
their 'sub-police headquarters. '
 The headquarters was placed under the mayor's
command, orders, direct supervision and control, and in
which his co-defendants were stationed. It was further
alleged that criminal complaints were entertained in the
sub-station/headquarters where defendant Pollisco acted
as "investigating officer and exercised authority to order
the apprehension of persons and their detention in the
camp, for days or weeks, without due process of law
and without bringing them to the proper court."
 Tebag was arrested by order of Mayor Brown without
any warrant or complaint filed in court. Tebag was then
maltreated and tortured by defendants as also ordered
by Mayor Brown. Tebag died as a result.
 Mayor Brown was held to havecommitted an offense in
relation to his office.
 A public officer commits an offense in relation to his
office if he perpetrates the offense while performing his
official functions and that he could not have committed
the offense without holding his public office. It iss said
to have been committed in relation to the office if it is
intimately connected with the office of the offender.
Such intimate relation must be alleged in the
information which is essential in determining the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
 Although the performance of the official function was
improper or is an irregular manner, it was alleged in the
information that Mayor Brown established the sub-
station and was under his command, supervision and
control and that his co-defendants were acting upon his
orders. Thus, in this case, there is an intimate
connection between the offense and the office of the
accused.
Lacson v. Executive Secretary
 Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong
Baleleng gang, an organized crime syndicate involved
in bank robberies, were slain by elements of the Anti-
Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG).
Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners
and petitioner-intervenors.
 
Acting on a media
expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of the
Criminal Investigation Command, that what actually
transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out
between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the
ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel
of investigators to investigate the said incident. Said
panel found the incident as a legitimate police
operation. However, a review board modified the
panel’s finding and recommended the indictment for
multiple murder against twenty-six respondents
including herein petitioner, charged as principal, and
herein petitioner-intervenors, charged as accessories.
After a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed amended
informations before the Sandiganbayan, where
petitioner was charged only as an accessory.
9
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

 There was no specific allegation of facts that the o Corruption of public

shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was officials
intimately related to the discharge of their official  C3. Frauds and illegal exactions and
duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended transactions
information does not indicate that the said accused  Frauds against public treasury and
arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the similar offenses
latter while in their custody. The stringent requirement  Other frauds
that the charge set forth with such particularity as will  Prohibited transactions
reasonably indicate the exact offense which the  Possession of prohibited interest by
accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his public officer
office was not established.  C4. Malversation of public funds or property
 

Consequently, for failure to show in the amended  Malversation of public funds or
information that the charge of murder was intimately property
connected with the discharge of official functions of the  Failure of accountable officer to
accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject render accounts
criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the  Failure of responsible officer to
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial render accounts before leaving the
Court and not the Sandiganbayan. country
 Illegal use of public funds or
A student regent of a state university is a public officer – property
Serana v. SB  Failure to make delivery of public
 S claims that SB has no jurisdiction over her person funds or property
because a student regent is not a public officer since she
 Offenses included in preceding
merely represents the students, in contrast to other provisions
regents who held their positions in ex officio capacity.
 C5. Infidelity of public officers
She also claims that she does not receive any salary and
 Infidelity in custody of prisoners
thus cannot fall under any salary grade.
o Conniving with or
 Court denied S’s petition. Petitioner is a public officer
consenting to evasion
whose position is covered by law vesting jurisdiction
o Evasion through
with SB. Law specifically includes Presidents, negligence
directors or trustees or managers of state universities. o Escape of prisoner under
Board of Regents of UP performs functions similar to
custody of a person not a
those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation.
public officer
Compensation is not an essential element of public
 Infidelity in the custody of
office and is merely incidental.
documents
o Removal, concealment or
Offenses committed in relation to the offense
destruction of documents
 To make an offense one committed in relation to the
o Officer breaking seal
office, the relation has to be such that in the legal sense,
o Opening of closed
the offense cannot exist without the office.
documents
 Office must be a constituent element of the crime as  Revelation of secrets
defined by statute
o Revelation of secrets by
 RPC Title 7: Crimes Committed by Public Officers an officer
 C2 Malfeasance and misfeasance in office o Public officer revealing
 Dereliction of duty secrets of private
o Knowingly rendering individual
unjust judgment  C6. Other offenses or irregularities by public
o Judgment rendered officers
through negligence  Disobedience, refusal or assistance,
o Unjust interlocutory order and maltreatment of prisoners
o Malicious delay in o open disobedience
administration of justice o Disobedience to order of
o Prosecution of offences; superior officer when said
negligence and tolerance order was suspended by
o Betrayal of public trust by inferior officer
an attorney or solicitor o Refusal of assistance
 Bribery o Refusal to discharge
o Direct bribery elective office
o Indirect bribery o Maltreatment of
o Qualified bribery prisoners

1
0
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
 Anticipation, prolongation and
abandonment of duties and powers
of public office
o Anticipation of duties of a
public office
o Prolonging performance
of duties and powers
o Abandonment of office or
position
 Usurpation of powers and unlawful
appointments
o Usurpation of legislative
powers
o Usurpation of executive
functions
o Usurpation of judicial
functions
o Disobeying request for
disqualification
o Orders or requests by
executive officers to any
judicial authority
o Unlawful appointments
 Abuses against chastity
 When offense can stand independently of the office, the
offense is not in relation to the office. Ex. Murder.
o Taking of human life is either murder or
homicide whether done by a private citizen or
public servant. – Montilla v. Hilario
o No direct relation between commission of
rape with homicide and office as municipal
mayor. Public office is not an essential
element of the crime charged and the offense
can stand independently of the office. –
Sanchez v. Demetriou
o Public Office is not an element of the crime
of murder because murder may be committed
by anyone. Public office is not the essence of
murder. – Cunanan v. Arceo
 An offense maybe said to have been committed in
relation to the office is the offense is intimately
connected with the office of the offender and
perpetrated while he was in the performance of his
official functions even if public office is not an element
of the offense charged. – Sanchez v. Demetriou
 In order to qualify the crime as having been committed
in relation to public office, information must contain the
specific factual allegations that would indicate the close
intimacy between the discharge of the official duties of
the accused and the commission of the offense charged,
Esteban v. Sandigan
 Accused filed motion to quash information against him
for acts of lasciviousness allegedly perpetrated by him
against female casual employee assigned to his office.
 SC held the SB had jurisdiction because the information
alleged with clarity that the accused used his official
position to commit the acts charged. Victim was
constrained to approach accused because it was the
accused whose recommendation was necessary for her
appointment as a casual employee but the accused
imposed that she first become his girlfriend.
 While it is true that public office is not an element of
the crime of acts of lasciviousness, he could not have
committed the crimes were it not for his being the judge
of the court where victim was working. Taken together
with the fact that the accused had authority to
recommend appointment of victim as employee, crimes
were intimately connected with his office
People v. Montejo
 City mayor accused of murder
 Information sufficiently indicated existence of acts and
event intimately connected to the public off the accused
Information clearly alleged that the mayor was
consequence of his act as a mayor that he organized
armed patrols and civilian commandos and provided
them with arms. Also acting as city mayor, he ordered
the arrest and maltreatment of the victim who dies as
consequence
 When public office is not an element of murder, the
offense alleged as shows its commission while accused
was in performance of his official functions and that
offense could not have been committed had he not held
his office.
When the actual specific allegations of the intimacy between
the offense and official duties of the accused need not appear
in the information
 If public office is a constituent element of the crime
charged as provided for by statue, there is no need for
information to state the specific factual allegations of
the intimacy between office and crime charged or that
accused committed the crime in the performance of his
duties. (Offense committed would not have existed
without the office)
 In those cases where public office is not a constituent
element of the offense charged, information has to
contain specific factual allegations showing the intimate
connection between the offense charged and public
office of the accused, and the discharge of his official
duties or functions.
o Must be more than a mere allegation that the
accused committed the crime charged in
relation to his office because that is a mere
conclusion of law.
SUMMARY: An offense is deemed to be committed in
relation to public office when
 Such office is an element of the crime charged or
 Offense charged is intimately connected with the
discharge of the official functions of the accused
o Even if position is not an essential ingredient
of the offense charged, as long as information
avers intimate connection between office and
offense, then the offense will have been
committed in relation to the public office.
Barriga v. Sandiganbayan – Public office related crimes
under RA 8249
1
1
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
 Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal
cases in public office is a constituent element as defined
by statute and the relation between the crime and the
offense is such that in a legal sense, offense committed
cannot exist without the office
 Offenses that are intimately connected with public
office and are perpetrated by the public officer while in
the performance of his official functions, through
improper or irregular conduct.
o Applies to public officers and employees
under Sec a 1-5 and
o Information must contain specific factual
allegations
Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan - Information averred facts
showing that the accused took advantage of his official
functions as mayor when he aimed the gun and threatened to
kill a councilor during public hearing, the crime charged is
intimately connected with the discharge of official functions.
Anti Money Laundering Cases
 Money laundering cases committed by public officers
and private persons in conspiracy with public officers
shall be under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan 13
Forfeiture cases 14
 Arises out of a cause of action separate and different
from plunder.
 Plunder does not absorb forfeiture cases.
 In plunder, what is sought to be established is the
commission of criminal acts in furtherance of
acquisition of ill gotten wealth.
 In forfeiture, it is merely the disproportion of
respondents’ properties to his legitimate income. It
may be proven by preponderance of evidence and there
is no need to prove how he acquired such properties. –
Garcia v. SB
Summary procedure in criminal cases 15
 MeTC, MTC, McTC shall have jurisdiction over cases
fall under summary procedure committed within their
territory
 Following cases are subject to summary procedure
o Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations
o Violations of the rental law; chanrobles
virtual law library
o Violations of municipal or city ordinances
o All other criminal cases where the penalty
prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a
fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties,
accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
arising therefrom
13
RA 9160 Anti Money Laundering Act 2001 Sec. 5
14
RA 1379
15
1991 Rules of Summary Procedure
o Offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, where the
imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.00
 May either be by complaint or information
o With affidavits of complainant and his
witnesses in such number of copies as there
are accused
o Plus 2 copies for courts files
o Must be complied with within 5 days from
filing of case, other wise, it will be dismissed.
 In Metro Manila and other chartered cities, the filing
shall be by information
o Except when offense is one that cannot be
prosecuted de oficio.
 Court shall set case for arraignment or trial if there is
ground to hold accused for trial.
o Dismissal of the case shall be ordered if there
is no cause or ground to hold the accused for
trial.
 Preliminary Conference shall be called by the court
o Enter stipulation of facts
o Consider propriety of allowing accused to
enter plea of guilty to a lesser offense
o Taking up such other matters to clarify the
issues and ensure speedy disposition of the
case
 A refusal or failure to stipulate shall not prejudice the
accused. Any admission of the accused during the
preliminary conference must be reduced to in writing
and singed by accused and counsel. If requirement is
not met, admission shall not be used against him.
 Affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the
direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the
same, thus there is no need for an actual direct
examination during trial.
 Witnesses who testified may be subjected to cross-
examination, redirect or re-cross examination.
 Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall not
be considered as competent evidence for the party
presenting the affidavit, but the adverse party may
utilize the same for any admissible purpose.
 Court is mandated not to order the arrest of the accused
except where the ground is his failure to appear when
required by court. If he is arrested, he may be released
on bail or recognizance by a responsible citizen
acceptable to the court.
 Where trial has been conducted, court shall promulgate
judgment not later than 30 days after termination of
trial.
Prohibited pleadings, motions and petitions in summary
procedure; Civil and criminal cases
 Motion to quash complaint or information
o Except if the ground is lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter or failure to comply
with barangay conciliation proceedings
 Motion for bill of particulars
 Motion for new trial, or for consideration of judgment
or for reopening of trial
 Petition for relief from judgment
1
2
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
 Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits
or any other paper
 Memoranda
 Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against
any interlocutory order issued by the court
 Motion to declare defendant in default
 Dilatory motions for postponement
 Reply
 3rd party complaints
 Interventions
III. SYNOPSIS OF THE CRIMINAL LITIGATION
PROCESS
INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM
 There can be no criminal action unless a crime is
believed to have been committed.
o Victim can be either a natural or a juridical
person.
 Mere commission of a crime does not automatically
trigger the application of the rules of criminal
procedure. Rules come into operation only when acts
are initiated that would put offender in contact with the
law.
o Offended party may file a written complaint
or
o Sworn complaints before the prosecuting arm
of the government or
o File a complaint directly with MTC
o Law enforcement officers may search a place
under control of the alleged offender and
seize items
o Arrest of an offender in flagrante delicto or
hot pursuit
 Barangay conciliation proceedings – RA 7160 Local
Government Code
o Compliance with the procedure will set in
motion the initial contact of parties with the
criminal justice system.
o Referral of a case to the Lupon for
conciliation or settlement is required before a
complaint, petition or action is filed in court.
o Invocation of judicial authority shall be
allowed only if a certification is issued by the
proper barangay official that judicial
intervention may now be availed of because
the desire conciliation or settlement was not
reached or when after a settlement previously
forged was repudiated by a party.
o With certificate to file action, case is now ripe
for filing in court.
 Not all cases require barangay conciliation proceedings
 If penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day
o Institution of criminal action is by filing a
complaint in affidavit form before authorized
officer for conducting a preliminary
investigation.
 Preliminary inquiry aims to
determine whether a crime has been
committed and that the person
complaint of is probably guilty
thereof and hence must be held for
trial.
 Filing of a complaint for conducting
the requisite preliminary
investigation is a way of instituting
a criminal action.
o After required preliminary investigation,
investigating prosecutor may either:
 Recommend dismissal of complaint
or
 Filing of aninformation in court
with accompanying resolution to
that effect prepared by prosecutor.
 May be further reviewed by Sec of
Justice who may reverse or modify
the resolution of the provincial or
city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor.
 If penalty prescribed by law is less than 4 years, 2
months and 1 day
o No need for a preliminary investigation
o Complaint or information may be filed
directly with the MTC
o One of the recognized ways of instituting
criminal action.
o MTC may dismiss for lack of probable cause
after an evaluation of evidence consisting of
affidavits and other supporting documents of
complainant and his witnesses or after
following process required in examination of
complaint and his witnesses.
o If MTC finds probable cause, court shall issue
a warrant of arrest or a commitment order if
accused has already been previously taken
into custody.
o Judge may opt to issue summons instead of a
warrant if he is satisfied that there is no need
to put accused in custody.
 In places like Manila and other chartered cities
o Require complaint to be filed directly with the
prosecutor
o Prosecutor may dismiss complaint or file the
complaint or information in court.
 Lawful arrest without warrant by peace officer or
private person
o Also begins the contact with the law
o Allowed when the person arrested has
committed, was actually committing or was
attempting to commit a crime in the presence
of the person effecting the arrest at the time
when arrest was made.
o Also allowed when the arrest was made after
a crime has just been committed and the
person making the arrest has personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that
engenders in him a belief that there is
1
3
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
probable cause that the person to be arrested
has committed the offense.
o In all cases of warrantless arrests, the person
arrested shall be delivered to the nearest
possible police station or jail without delay.
o When lawfully arrested without a warrant, he
shall not, as a rule undergo a preliminary
investigation even if under the rules, the
offense involves a penalty which normally
would require such investigation.
 However, arrested person may ask
for a preliminary investigation
before filing of complaint or
information, provided he signs a
waiver of the provisions of Art. 125
16.
 Notwithstanding the waiver, he may
apply for bail even before he is
charged in court.
o Complaint or information may be filed with
the prosecutor after an inquest has been
conducted.
o If there is no inquest prosecutor, complaint
may be filed by the offended party of peace
officer, directly with court on basis of
affidavit of the party or arresting officer or
person
o Inquest prosecutor may release the person for
further proceedings instead of filing a
criminal action. Usually happens when the
arrest made does not comply with rules on a
valid arrest. Person arrested is then released
to be notified later of a subsequent
preliminary investigation.
o After filing of information, rule allows person
arrested to ask for a preliminary investigation
within 5 days from the time he learns of the
complaint or information being filed and with
the same right to adduce evidence in his
defense
 Authorities may initiate a search and a seizure by virtue
of a search warrant duly issued.
o Happens when law enforcement authorities
are in possession of information on possible
criminal activities
16
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the property
judicial authorities
The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed
upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for
some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within the period of: twelve (12) hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by
correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours,
for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or
their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of
his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate
and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.
o Search and seizure may also be confused
without warrant under well recognized
exception
o When the search yields property or effects
constituting a crime or subjects of a crime or
are means to commit a crime, the appropriate
criminal action shall be instituted.
FILING OF THE INFORMATION OR COMPLAINT AND
OTHER PROCESSES
 Criminal action is commenced by the filing of a
complaint or information and shall be prosecuted under
the control and direction of the public prosecutor
although in special cases, a private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the chief of prosecution office
or regional state prosecutor to prosecute the case subject
to the approval of the court.
 Complaint or information
o Required to be in writing
o Caption of a criminal case has at least 2
names
 People of the Philippines
– party that brought the
action
 Person named as offender
– party against whom
action is brought.
o Must state the name of the accused or under a
fictitious name when his true name is alleged
to be unknown.
o Name of offended party
o Designation of offense
o Acts or omissions constituting the offense
o Specific qualifying and aggravating
circumstances involved
o Cause of accusation against the accused so
that he may know the offense for which he is
charged and also so court may pronounce
judgment.
o Date of commission of offense need not be
the precise date unless same is a material
ingredient of the offense
IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF THE CIVIL ACTION
 When criminal action is instituted, civil action for
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall also be deemed instituted with the
criminal action. However, when civil action is not
deemed instituted with the criminal action when
offended party:
o Waives the civil action
o Reserves the right to institute the civil action
separately
o Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action
 Independent civil actions are also not deemed instituted
with the criminal case.
o Reason is that these are civil actions that arise
from the same acts constituting the offense
charged but they do not legally arise from
1
4
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
offense charged and are independent sources
of liability.
 After commencement of criminal action, separate civil
action arising from the offense, cannot be instituted
until final judgment is entered in criminal action.
o Also if criminal action is filed after civil
action is instituted, civil action shall be
suspended in whatever stage it may be found.
o Independent civil actions, however are not
suspended and proceeds independently of the
criminal action.
 Suspension of civil action upon commencement of
criminal action does not apply to a situation, which
poses a prejudicial question.
o In this case, it is the criminal action that may
be suspended upon a proper petition.
o Exists when previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related
to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action and the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.
AVAILMENT OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
 When complaint or information is filed and the civil
action arising from the offense charged is properly
instituted, the offended party may avail of the
provisional remedies available in civil actions.
 Ex. Offended party may have property of accused
attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment
that may be recovered form accused when
circumstances arise justifying attachment as when
criminal action is based on a claim for money or
property embezzled.
BAIL
 Person under custody may gain release from
confinement by availing of right to bail
o Before or after he is formally charged
o In the court where his case is pending
o In the form of corporate surety, property
bond, cash deposit or recognizance.
 Bail can be assumed of even before the information or
complaint is filed. Person in custody who is not yet
charged in court may apply for bail with any court in
the province, city or municipality where he is held.
 Application for bail does not bar accused from
challenging validity of arrest.
 Bail may be a matter of right or a matter of judicial
discretion.
o Person charged with capital offense when
evidence of guilt is not strong may be allowed
bail.
o Burden of proof to show that evidence of
guilty is strong belongs to prosecution
ARRAIGNMENT; BILL OF PARTICULARS;
SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT
 Arraignment – formal mode and manner of
implementing the constitutional right of an accused to
be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him.
o Without arraignment, accused is not deemed
to have been informed of such accusation
 If before arraignment, accused escapes, court has no
authority to try him in absentia.
 Done before the court where the complaint or
information was filed or assigned for trial.
o Made in open court by judge or clerk
o Consists of furnishing the accused with a
copy of the complaint or information and
reading the same in a language he
understands
o Then asked whether he pleads guilty or not.
 During date set for arraignment, accused does not have
to enter his plea out rightly because before arraignment
and plea, accused has several options.
o Motion for Bill of Particulars – if there are
defects in the information or complaint that
may prevent him from properly pleading to
the charge and preparing for trial
o Suspension of arraignment – when justifiable
reasons exist for suspension as when accused
appears sto be suffering from unsound mental
condition which renders him unfit to fully
understand the charge against him and to
plead intelligently thereto.
o Move to quash or dismiss – any time before
entering his plea
QUASHAL OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
 Written motion signed by the accused or his counsel
which is supposed to distinctly specify both its factual
and legal grounds.
 Motion is filed before accused enters his plea.
o Ex. Move to quash on the ground that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense or
that court trying the case has no jurisdiction
over the person of the accused
 If motion is not dismissed or quashed, and a subsequent
plea of not guilty is not entered, case continues.
PRE-TRIAL
 After arraignment and within 30 days from date court
acquires jurisdiction over the accused, court shall order
mandatory trial conference to consider certain matters
that will help promote a fair and expeditious trial of the
criminal and civil aspects of the case such as:
o Plea bargaining
o Stipulation of facts
o Marking of evidence
o Waiver of objection to admissibility
o Possible modification of order of trial
 After pre-trial, court shall issue a pretrial order
o Reciting the actions taken, facts stipulated
and evidence marked
o Binds the parties, limits the trial to matters
not disposed of and controls the course of
action during trial unless modified to prevent
manifest injustice.
1
5
 CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
o All agreements made or entered during the
pre-trial conference shall be reduced in
writing and signed by the accused and
counsel; otherwise, they cannot be used
against the accused.
TRIAL ; DEMURRER
 Within 30 days from receipt of pretrial order, trial shall
commence
o Once trial commences, it shall continue from
day to day as far as practicable until
terminated.
o May be postponed for a reasonable period of
time for good cause.
 Trial begins with prosecution presenting its evidence
o Except when accused admits the ac or
omission charged but interposes a lawful
defense.
 When prosecution rests its case, accused may
o Presents his defense and damages he may
have sustained arising from any provisional
remedy issued in the case or
o Move to dismiss the case by presenting a
Demurrer to Evidence
 Ground of insufficiency of evidence
 May be presented with or without
leave of court
 If court denies motion, defendant
may still adduce evidence in his
defense but shall waive the right to
present evidence.
o Court may dismiss case on its own initiative
after giving prosecution opportunity to be
heard.
 Prosecution and defense may in the same order, present
rebuttal and sur- rebuttal evidence.
 Upon admission to evidence of parties, case shall be
deemed submitted for decision unless court directs them
to argue orally or to submit written memoranda.
JUDGMENT
 Judgment – adjudication by the court on the guilt or
innocence of the accused and the imposition on him of
the proper penalty and civil liability.
o Must be written in official language
o Personally and directly prepared by the judge
and signed by him
o Contain clearly and distinctly a statement of
the facts and the law upon which it is based.
 Promulgated by reading it in the presence of accused
and any judge of court in which it was rendered
o Unless it is for a light offense in which case
the judgment may be pronounced in presence
of counsel or representative.
POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES
 Any time before judgment of conviction becomes final
or before appeal is perfected, accused may file:
o Motion for modification of judgment
o Motion for the setting aside of judgment
 Any time before final judgment, accused or court on its
own motion may file/grant:
o Motion for new trial – predicated upon errors
of law or irregularities during the trial and
discovery of new or material evidence
 Accused may also appeal judgment of conviction
o Not withstanding perfection of appeal, court
may allow appellant upon proper motion to
withdraw appeal already perfected before
record has been forwarded to proper appellate
court.
o Appeal may even be withdrawn upon proper
motion of appellant before rendition of the
judgment of the case on appeal in which case
judgment of court of origin shall become final
and case shall be remanded to latter court for
execution and judgment
 Venue for appeal
o MTC, MTcT, MeTC decisions – appeal to
RTC.
 by notice of appeal with court
which rendered the judgment or
final order appealed from
o RTC decisions– appeal either to CA or SC in
proper cases provided for by law
 for RTC decisions in its exclusive
jurisdiction - by notice of appeal
with court which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed
 for RTC decisions in its appellate
powers – petition for review under
Rule 42
 Appeal in cases where penalty
imposed by RTC is reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment –
appeal to CA in accordance with
Rule 122. Review of the case by
the CA is necessary before
o CA decisions– SC
o Sandiganbayan decisions – SC
 petition for review on certiorari in
accordance with Rule 45
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - When all remedies have been
exhausted and judgment has become final, same shall be
entered in accordance with existing rules.
1
6
CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

1
7