Criminal Procedure

Midterms Doctrines

A. VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL

Pilipinas Shell v Proceedings for Applications for Search Warrants are not criminal in nature and
Romars thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply.
International
Application for Search Warrant is a special criminal process, and the power to
issue a special criminal process is inherent in all courts.

IC: Parties do not need to apply for search warrant in the territory where the
crime was committed.
People v Taroy Jurisdiction over the venue cannot be waived nor subjected to stipulation.

The right venue must exist as a matter of law.

For territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be instituted and
tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or province where the offense
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took place.
Pestillos v People Jurisdiction over the person is acquired upon
1. Arrest, with or without warrant; or
2. Voluntary appearance or surrender.

In this case, the warrantless arrest by the policeman is valid. Even if he did not see
the crime, he arrived within an hour of its commission and had personal
knowledge of its commission. It is not necessary that a policeman witness the
crime flagrante delicto. A warrantless arrist is valid when a policeman has
personal knowledge that a crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed.
Uy v Judge Javellana A case that has not been previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa shall be
dismissed without prejudice. They may be revived only after the referral. This
provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the accused was arrested
without a warrant. Judge Javellana should have granted the motion to dismiss on
this ground instead of continuing with the case.

In cases falling under Summary Procedure (in this case, Malicious Mischief), The
court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear
whenever required. Instead, Judge Javellana erroneously issued a warrant of
arrest after the filing of the case.

In cases falling under Summary Procedure, the court shall not conduct
preliminary investigation. In this case, Judge Javellana erroneously did so.
Malabed v Atty Dela The submission of the certificate to file action (CFA) is a pre-condition for the
Pena filing of a complaint in court. The CFA evidences the non-conciliation between the
parties in the barangay.

Faking a CFA, or using another CFA based on a different case, is non-compliance

with this requirement. The Court shall dismiss such case.
B. Authority to Issue Hold Departure Orders

Hold Departure An MTC Judge cannot issue a hold departure order.

Order issued by
Judge Madronio, According to Supreme Court Circular 39-97, only second-level courts with
MTC Manaoag jurisdiction over the case are authorized to issue HDOs. First-level courts cannot.
Mupas v Espanol When the case is still pending with the MTC, an RTC Judge cannot issue the hold
departure order.

According to Supreme Court Circular 39-97, only second-level courts with

jurisdiction over the case are authorized to issue HDOs. Where the case is still
pending with the MTC, RTC has yet to acquire jurisdiction and has no authority to
issue the HDO.

C. JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

Inding v A Councilor, or a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, with a Salary Grade of

Sandiganbayan 25, charged with Anti-Graft is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Enumerated Officers (in (a) to (g) Section 4 a.(1) of the Sandiganbayan Charter as
amended) were specifically included within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan because the lawmakers considered them big fish and their
positions important, regardless of their salary grades.

In other words, enumerated officers, regardless of their salary grades, are within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
People v. Public Officials enumerated in Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, can be
Sandiganbayan charged in the Sandiganbayan
 Not only with violations of Graft, Bribery, and Forfeiture; 4(a)
 But also with all other crimes committed in relation to their office; 4(b)

In this case, a public officer cannot claim contest the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan on the ground that he is not being charged with the crimes
mentioned in 4(a), i.e. Graft, Bribery, and Forfeiture, since he can still be charged
under 4(b).
Serrano v. A student regent of the UP falls under the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
Sandiganbayan specifically under “presidents, managers, directors, and trustees of state
universities.” The Board of Regeants performs functions similar to those of a
board of trustees of a non-stock corporation.

It is of no moment that the said student regent does not receive compensation for
her work. A public officer is determined not by renumeration but by the
investment of the State in an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions
of government.
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379, Act on Forfeiture
Sandiganbayan to the State. Even though the proceeding is civil in nature, the forfeiture of the
illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty.

D. Inordinate Delay
People v. A delay of more than five (5) years from the institution of the criminal action
Sandiganbayan warrants dismissal of the case.

The investigations of a fact-finding committee, subsequent to the institution of the

criminal action and prior to the preliminary investigation, are considered in the
period in determining whether the case may be dismissed due to inordinate delay.

E. JURISDICITON OF THE OMBUDSMAN

DOJ v Liwag The Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and authorizes him to take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency, the investigation of such cases.

All this means that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan is not co-equal with (actually, greater than) other
investigative bodies, such as the DOJ.

The Ombudsman can delegate the power but the delegate cannot claim equal
power.

In the present case, it is the Ombudsman before whom the complaint was initially
filed. Hence, it has the authority to proceed with the preliminary investigation to
the exclusion of the DOJ.
Ombudsman v The School Superintendent and not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over
Galicia administrative cases against public school teachers.

However, in this case, the accused is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of
the ombudsman.

His right to due process was fully satisfied when he participated fully in the
investigation proceedings. The investigation conducted by the Ombudsman is
valid.
Angeles v Gutierrez The Ombudsman may motu proprio dismiss a complaint even without a PI.

The Supreme Court will generally not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of
its investigative and prosecutorial powers without a compelling reason.

Grave abuse of discretion is the compelling reason wherein the Court may
interfere with the Ombudsman. Burden is on he who alleges.
Gonzales v OP III Constitution insulated the Office of the Ombudsman from political influence by
making it an independent office.

To subject the Ombudsman to possible discipline and removal by the President,

whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive Department are subject to the
Ombudsman's disciplinary authority, would compromise the independence
expressly granted to it by the Constitution.

Furthermore, what is true for the Ombudsman must be equally and necessarily
true for her Deputies who act as agents of the Ombudsman in the performance of
their duties.
 In other words, Ombudsman Deputies, just like the Ombudsman, are outside of
the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the President.

However, this rule does not apply with respect to Special Prosecutors, whom the
Court considers as within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the
President.

Even considering that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is included in the
composition of the Office of the Ombudsman by Sec 3 of RA 6770, the Court did
not consider the Office of the Special Prosecutor as constitutionally within the
Office of the Ombudsman and, hence, not entitled to the same independence the
Ombudsman enjoys under the Constitution.

F. REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Morales v CA The concept of Ombudsman independence cannot be invoked as basis to insulate

Ombudsman from judicial power constitutionally vested unto the Courts. The
Courts are apolitical bodies that are ordained to act as impartial tribunals and
apply even justice to all.

Hence, the Ombudsman’s notion that it can be exempt from an incident of judicial
power, i.e. a provisional writ of injunction against a prevensive suspension order,
clearly strays from the concept ‘s rationale of insulating the office from political
harassment or pressure.

In other words, the Courts may now also issue provisional injunctive writs to
enjoin investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, as it is an
incident of judicial power.
Antonino v Desierto The aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court when the finding of the Ombudsman is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. To prove GADELEJ, there
must be evident bad faith or gross negligence.

The Ombudsman may normally dismiss a complaint motu proprio. While the
Ombudsman’s discretion is not absolute, petitioner must show GADELEJ in the
discretion. But petitioner failed in this respect.
Enemecio v OMB A filed an administrative complaint and a criminal complaint against public official
B. OMB dismissed both the administrative complaint and the criminal complaint.
A petitioned for Certiorari before the CA re: dismissal of the criminal complaint.

Held: In OMB dismissal of criminal complaints, the proper remedy is Rule 65

Petition for Certiorari but the Proper Forum is the Supreme Court.

Note: In OMB dismissal of administrative complaints, the proper remedy is a

petition for appeal under Rule 43 before the CA.
Bavierra v. Zoleta In OMB dismissal of criminal complaints, the proper remedy is Rule 65 Petition
for Certiorari but the Proper Forum is the Supreme Court.

G. Power of DOJ
Dino et Al v. Olivarez However, when the COMELEC Law Department directed the City Prosecutor of
Parañ aque to transmit the entire records of the case to the Law Department,
COMELEC, by the fastest means available and to suspend further implementation
of the questioned resolution until final resolution of said appeal by the Comelec
En Banc, it had the effect of SUSPENDING THE AUTHORITY of the City Prosecutor
to prosecute the case. This was what we did not consider in our decision.

COMELEC has power to investigate and prosecute elections cases.

COMELEC has power to delegate their prosecution powers to other prosecuting
arms. Consequently, COMELEC also has power to with draw such delegation.
Viudez v CA Once an information has been filed with the Court, the Accused cannot suspend
proceedings, for the issuance of warrant of arrest or otherwise, by filing a petition
for review to the Secretary of Justice regarding the Resolution of the prosecutor
on his preliminary investigation.

When an information has been filed with the Court, any disposition of the case as
to its dismissal, or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound
discretion of the said court, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the
case before it.

H. Role of OSG

People v Duca When the CA rendered a decision without requiring the SolGen to Comment on
the petition of the accused, such decision is void for violating due process.

The SolGen is the representative of the Government in the SC and CA in all

criminal proceedings.

The State is entitled due process. The service of the copy of the petition through
the Prosecutor is inefficacious.

Hence, the CA decision is void for lack of due process.

Republic v. Iyoy The SolGen is authorized to intervene in cases for declaration of nullity or
annulment of marriages.

Even if Family Code only expressly authorizes the prosecutor to investigate in

such cases, this fact also does not bar the SolGen from intervening in annulment or
nullity of marriages. The Administrative Code appoints the SolGen as the principal
law officer of the Government.