Lesson 1

Four levels of our judicial system

The Philippines is divided into 13 Judicial Regions.

Highest Court - Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

Second Level Courts - RTC

First level courts (At the bottom) - Municipal Trial Courts or MTC, referred to as Metropolitan Trial
Courts in Manila or MeTC, In Baguio, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts

Classifications

Jurisdiction may either be original or appellate

Original jurisdiction is that bestowed upon the court in the first instance.

Appellate is that given to a court by means of appeal from the judgment of another court.

MTC and RTC are trial courts although RTC has appellate jurisdiction over the judgment of MTC.

General as distinguish from Special or Limited Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction is the power to adjudicate all cases except those expressly withheld from its
power by law.

Special or limited jurisdiction is that which limits the court’s jurisdiction only to particular cases.

Exclusive as distinguish from Concurrent Jurisdiction

Exclusive jurisdiction is the power of a court to adjudicate the case to the exclusion of all the other
courts.

Concurrent jurisdiction, sometimes referred to as coordinate jurisdiction, is the power conferred

upon different courts whether of the same level or different ranks

Jurisdiction is the power of the court to try and decide a case. If a case is brought to a court and
later the court conducts a trial and renders a judgment thereon but the court has no jurisdiction
over that case, then all the proceedings had in that case, including the judgments rendered by
the court are void.

If the court has no jurisdiction over a case, the only power that it has is to dismiss that case. It
cannot render any judgment because it has no jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction came from two latin words, Juris + dico literally, “I speak by the law”
 The requisites/aspects of criminal jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over the offense.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Jurisdiction over the territory where the crime was committed.

What determines the jurisdiction of the court over the offense?

What determines the jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined by the nature of the
offense as alleged in the complaint or the information and by the penalty prescribed by the law
for the offense committed. It is the penalty that will determine what court can try the case.

It has been said that if the penalty for the offense committed does not exceed 6 years of
imprisonment, then it is the MTC that can try the case.

Over what offenses does the MTC exercise jurisdiction?

1. Over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
2. Over all offenses in which the penalty prescribe by the law is imprisonment not exceeding 6
years.

Take note: there are certain offenses where the penalty is not exceeding 6 years but they are triable by
RTC. Code (LIE-MD)

- Libel (penalty for libel is 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months)
- Infringement of a copyright or trade name (2 yrs to 5 yrs) cognizable by special commercial
courts. If the place where such crime is committed doesn’t have such special courts, then the
RTC shall try the case. Special Commercial Court is an RTC designated by the SC as a special
commercial court.
- Election offenses (penalty is 1 yr to 6 years)
- Minors (CICL, Youthful Offenders) if an offense is committed and a minor is involved either as an
offended party or an offender, then it is the Family Court that will try the case. If no such court
exists in that place, then the RTC will try the case.
- Drug-related Cases – triable by the RTC regardless of the penalty.

The amount of the fine is not material in determining what court can try the case except if the only
penalty is fine.

Supposed the penalty is imprisonment, just look at the duration of the imprisonment.

Supposed the penalty is imprisonment OR fine, just look at the duration of the imprisonment. The
amount of the fine is immaterial.

Supposed the penalty is imprisonment AND fine, just look at the duration of the imprisonment.
If the ONLY penalty is fine, the amount of fine will determine what court can try the case. If the
amount of the fine does not exceed 4 thousand pesos or 6 thousand pesos in offenses committed by
government officials committed by them in the exercise of their duties, then it’s the MTC that has
jurisdiction. If the amount of the fine exceeds 4k or 6k in case of government officials, then it’s the
RTC that can try the case.

1) What are the requisites of criminal jurisdiction?

There are 3 requisites for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction
A. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
Know the criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of various courts to know
which court has jurisdiction.
It is conferred by law. Thus, it cannot be the subject to waiver, acquiescence,
agreement or consent of the parties.
Conferment of jurisdiction cannot be presumed. Thus, in order to ascertain
whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the provision of the law shall be inquired.
Consult (BP 129 as amended by RA 7691)
Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information.
It is not determined by the evidences presented during the trial.
It is determined by the imposable penalty not the penalty imposed.
It is determined by the law at the commencement of the criminal action not the
law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense.
Except those cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because it
is determined at the time of the commission of the offense.

B. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Acquired through:
A. Upon arrest of the accuse by virtue of warrant issued by the court.
B. Voluntary submission to Court’s jurisdiction.
When you asked for an affirmative relief from the court, you thereby
voluntarily submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of the court. (Miranda v
Tuliao)

Custody of the law versus jurisdiction over the person

 It is possible that the court has already jurisdiction over the person of the
accused but the accused is not under the custody of law. People v Agbay

It is also possible that the accused is already under the custody of law but not
under the jurisdiction of the court (ex. In flagrante arrest)

C. Jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed (Jurisdiction of
place of the commission of the crime)
Sec. 10. Place of Commission of the Offense
The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its
allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients
occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular
place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense
charged or necessary for its identification (Rule 110)
In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. Venue must be established during the
trial, otherwise the case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
General rule: The venue is the place where the crime is committed.

Place where action is to be instituted.

(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where
any of its essential ingredients occurred.

(b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or private

vehicle while in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or other
vehicle passed during such its trip, including the place of its departure and
arrival. Section 15, Rule 110

Exceptions:

- Article 2, RPC

- SC order change of venue (Sec. 5[4], Art. VIII)

- Section 15(b) – Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other

public or private vehicle in the course of its trip,

- Section 15(c) – where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the

course of its voyage
 - Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan

- Libel (Art. 360)

- Illegal Recruitment RA 8042, as amended

Venue in BP 22

The place where the check is:

- Drawn

- Issued

- Delivered

- Dishonored (Yalong v People)

2) Over what offenses does a municipal trial court have jurisdiction?

For offenses not over 6 years of imprisonment irrespective of fines, it is within the
jurisdiction of the MTC.

3) Over what offenses does a regional trial court have jurisdiction?

For offenses over 6 years of imprisonment irrespective of fines, it is within the jurisdiction
of the RTC. Except if there’s a specific provision of the law conferring jurisdiction to RTC
(libel, cyber-crime, money-laundering) Defamation is below 6 years but by specific
provision of the RPC, the RTC has jurisdiction.

- Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city and municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction.

- Over all the offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory
or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof:
Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.

- Those where the penalty provided by law exceeds six (6) years of imprisonment
irrespective of the fine;

- Violations of RA 9165; jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively vested

with the RTC and no other. De Lima vs Guerrero

- Violations of Intellectual Property Law;

 - Defamation under Article 360 of the RPC;

- Violation of RA 9262;

- Anti-money laundering;

- Violation of Cyber-Crime law;

- Those cases falling under the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

4) What criminal cases are triable by the Sandiganbayan?

Elements of Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan:
A. Know the offense or crime charged. What is the offense committed?
Type of cases:
Violations of RA 3019 – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
RA 1379 – Forfeiture
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book 2 of the RPC (Direct Bribery, Indirect
Bribery, Qualified Bribery and Corruption of Public Officials)
Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimes
committed by the public officials and employees committed in relation to the
office.
When is an offense committed in relation to the office?
Office must be a constituent element of the crime. Chapter 2 to 6, Title VII of
the RPC – from Art. 204 to 245
In these offenses public office or being a public officer is an element of the
crime.
When is an offense committed in relation to the office?
If the public office is not an element of the crime, may an offense be “still
classified as offense committed in relation to the office” so as to confer
jurisdiction to Sandiganbayan?

YES, if there is an intimate connection between the office and the offense or
that the office was used in the commission of the crime.
The information alleged that the crime could not have been committed had
the accused not used his position or office.
 - This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of
official duties “must be alleged in the information.”
- We believe that the mere allegation in the amended information that the
offense was committed by the accused public officer “in relation to his
office” is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not
factual averment that would show the close intimacy between the offense
charged and the discharge of the accused’s official duties.

B. Who committed the offense?

A. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade “27” and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (RA 6758),
specifically including:
a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and
other provincial department heads:
b. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers and other city
department heads:
c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul
and higher;
d. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all
officers of higher rank:
e. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the
position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent (police colonel) and higher;
f. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials
and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government
owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations.
B. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
C. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
 D. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, withot
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution and;
E. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
Jurisdiction over private persons
- The controlling doctrine is that private person may be charged in conspiracy
with public officers. Hence, it is a settled rule that private persons, when
acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty,
held liable for violation of RA 3019 (Uyboco vs People)
- Even of the public officer prior to the filing of the information died, the graft
court will not be divested of its jurisdiction.
Take note:
Provided, that the RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the information:
(a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges
damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding one million pesos (1,000,000.00) (RA
10660, amending PD 1606 and RA 8249)
Appellate Jurisdiction
"In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary
Grade ’27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and
PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in
the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and
municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions
as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original
jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided”
"The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions,
and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its 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 Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in
1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the
Supreme Court.

Rule 110

How is criminal action instituted? It depends:

If the crime requires preliminary investigation – by filing with the proper officer for
purpose of conducting preliminary investigation.

If the crime does not require preliminary investigation – by filing it in court (when the
crime is committed in the provinces), or prosecutor’s office in case of chartered cities.

What are the cases which do not require preliminary investigation?

Those cases whose imposable penalty is less than 4 years, 2 months and 1day.
Section 1 Rule 112

What is the effect of the institution of the criminal action on prescriptive period?

- The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise
provided in special laws (Section 1, Rule 110)

Rule on prescription for violations of RPC and special laws

The filing of the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for
purposes of preliminary investigation shall interrupt the running of the running of the
prescriptive period. Disini v Sandiganbayan

What if the court where the information was filed has no jurisdiction, will it suspend the
running of the prescriptive period?

YES. Reodica vs CA

Sufficiency of the complaint or information

Section 6 – A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused;

the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. Code: N-
D-A-N-D-P

What is the remedy if the information is not sufficient?

- Accused can file a motion
- Ground:
 Facts charged do not constitute an offense (Sec. 3(a), Rule 117)
 Does not conform substantially to the required form (Sec. 3(e), Rule
117)
 Officer who filed the information does not have the authority to file the
same (Sec. 3(e), Rule 117)
 Lack of jurisdiction
Quisay v People
- Complaints or information filed before the courts without the prior written
authority or approval of the foregoing authorized officers renders the same
effective and, therefore, subject to quashal pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule
117 of the same Rules.
- In this relation, People v Garfin firmly instructs that the filing of an Information
by an officer without the requisite authority to file the same (not signed nor
approved by the city/provincial prosecutor) constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity
which cannot be cure by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even by express
consent. Hence, such ground may be raised at any stage of the proceeding.
You can question it even for the first time on appeal.
Name of the accused

Section 7 — The complaint or information must state the name and surname of
the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is
known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a
fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.

If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in some
other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or
information and record

People vs Espera

Proving the identity of the accused as the malefactor is the prosecution’s primary
responsibility. Accordingly, the first duty of the prosecution is not only to prove
the crime, but also to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission
of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without the identity of
the malefactor being clearly ascertained.

Designation of the offense

Section 8 — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the
offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense,
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection
of the statute punishing it.
Purpose
The designation of the offense is a critical element for it assists in apprising the
accused of the offense being charged. Its inclusion in the information is
imperative to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him of the opportunity
to prepare his defense accordingly. Quimvel v People
Cause of the accusation
Section 9.  — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense
and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what
offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances
and for the court to pronounce judgment