BASIC CONCEPTS
Cariaga v. People, 626 SCRA 231
What is CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?
- treats of the rules and processes by which the
criminal laws are enforced and by which the
State prosecutes those who violate such laws.
In People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267, the court
defined procedural law, as applied in criminal
law, as one that “provides or regulates the steps
by which one who committed a crime is to be
punished.”
Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial system
ADVERSARIAL
1) Contemplates two contending parties before
the court.
2) The judge cannot act as an inquisitor who
pursues his own investigation.
3) The court has a passive role and relies
largely on the evidence presented by both
sides.
INQUISITORIAL
1) The court plays an active role as it
participates in gathering facts and evidence.
2) the court is not limited to the evidence
presented as it may utilize evidence gathered
outside the court.
3) the court directs and supervises the gathering
of evidence and questioning of witnesses.
What is our system of procedure?
 It is accusatorial or adversarial.
 It is a two-sided structure consisting of the
PROSECUTION & ACCUSED.
 The prosecution and accused will present
evidence.
 In deciding, the court cannot consider
evidence not formally offered.
Interpretation of the Rules
The rules on criminal procedure shall be
“LIBERALLY construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a JUST, SPEEDY and
INEXPENSIVE disposition of every action and
proceeding.” (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court:)
 Accused’s counsel erroneously appealed her
conviction to the CA instead of to the
Sandiganbayan.
 Should the rules on appeal be strictly followed,
the appeal shall be dismissed for having been
filed with the wrong court.
 How should the court rule?
Ruling:
The SC held that since the appeal involved a
criminal case and the possibility of a person
being deprived of liberty due to a procedural
lapse is great, a relaxation of the rule was
warranted.
Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal
Jurisdiction
Basic requisites before a court can acquire
jurisdiction over a criminal case are:
a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b) Jurisdiction over the Territory; and
c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
(Cruz v. CA, 388 SCRA 72)
Criminal Jurisdiction over the
SUBJECT MATTER
 This refers to the authority of the court to
hear and determine a particular criminal case.
 In short, it is jurisdiction over the offense
charged.
 In Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551,
the court described such jurisdiction as the
authority to hear and try a particular offense
and impose the punishment for it or that the
offense is one which the court is, by law,
authorized to take cognizance of.
How is it conferred?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
CONFERRED by LAW and any judgment, order or
resolution issued without it is void and cannot be
given effect. (Magno vs. People, 647 SCRA
362,371).
(Apo Cement Corp. vs. Mingson Minging
Industries Corp., G.R. No. 206728, November
12, 2014.)
Where there is a violation of basic constitutional
rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction.
Where the denial of the fundamental right of due
process is apparent, a decision rendered in
disregard of that right is void for lack of
jurisdiction.
Can it be acquired or waived by omission?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter CANNOT be:
 acquired through a WAIVER or
 enlarged by the OMISSION of the parties or
 conferred by the ACQUIESCENCE of the
court.
(Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, February
12, 2014)
What law determines it?
 Jurisdiction to try criminal cases is
DETERMINED by the law in effect at the
time of the
commencement/institution/filing of the
action/complaint or information.
 (People v. Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212,227;
Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296,302; Asistio
v. People, G.R. No. 200465, April 20, 2015)
Can it be presumed?
 NO. When the law confers jurisdiction, it must
be clear.
 It cannot be presumed.
 It must appear from the statute or will not
be held to exist. (De Jesus v. Garcia, 19 SCRA
554)
How is it determined?
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the ALLEGATIONS in the
complaint of information and not by the
FINDINGS based on the evidence after trial.
(Mobilia Products v. Umezawa, 452 SCRA
736).
 It is not determined by the defenses set up
by the accused. (Rapsing v. Ables, 684 SCRA
195)
What penalty determines such jurisdiction?
• It is the penalty imposable by law on
the offense charged and not by the penalty
actually imposed after trial.
• It is the penalty imposable by law on
the basis of the facts as recited in the
complaint or information. (People v.
Buissan, 105 SCRA 547)
Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction or
Continuing Jurisdiction?
General Rule:
Under this principle, the jurisdiction of the court
is referred to as “continuing” since once a court
acquires jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
continues until the court has done all that it
can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
• Hence, once the court acquires
jurisdiction, it may not be ousted by
subsequent events, such as a new law
placing it to another court.
Exceptions:
1. When there is an express provision in the
new statute, OR
2. The statute is clearly intended to apply to
actions pending before its enactment.
(People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, Palana v.
People, 534 SCRA 303)
When may OBJECTIONS on jurisdictional
grounds BE RAISED?
• At any stage of the proceedings.
• It may even be raised for the first time
on appeal.
• The court may even consider it motu
proprio at any stage of the proceedings
or on appeal. (Fukuzume v. People, 474
SCRA 570; Foz v. People, 603 SCRA 124;
Atienza v. People, February 12, 2014)
Is there any limitation to one’s right to raise
the issue of jurisdiction?
• YES. By way of EXCEPTION, In
Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551,
the court held that a party cannot invoke the
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.
• This is known as BAR BY LACHES or
ESTOPPEL, an exception for reasons of
public policy. (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23
SCRA 29; Pangilinan v. CA, 321 SCRA 51).
Criminal Jurisdiction over the
PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
This refers to the authority of the court, not
over the subject matter of the criminal litigation,
but over the person charged. This requires
that the person charged must have been brought
into the court for trial. (Antiporda v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551)
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON of the
accused is ACQUIRED as follows:
a) upon his arrest, with or without warrant; or
b) upon his voluntary appearance/ surrender
or submission to the jurisdiction of the
court. (Valdepenas v. People, 16 SCRA 871)
Instances of voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court:
1. Filing of a PLEADING seeking for affirmative
relief like a motion to dismiss (Jimenez v.
Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151);
2. Filing a MOTION to QUASH or other pleadings
requiring the exercise of the court's
jurisdiction (Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA
633);
3. Appearance for arraignment (Gimenez v.
Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4)
4. The filing of a motion for determination of
probable cause (David v. Agbay, G.R. No.
199113, March 18, 2015)
5. Active participation in the trial and
presentation of evidence (Peope v. Rivera,
597 SCRA 299)
Exceptions to voluntary submission:
• Not all acts seeking affirmative relief
constitute voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. The exceptions are:
1) Making a special appearance to question the
jurisdiction of the court;
2) Filing a motion to quash precisely assailing the
jurisdiction over his person
3) Filing a motion to quash warrant of arrest
since it is the very legality of the court
process forcing submission of the person of
the accused that is the very issue. (Miranda v.
Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377)
Custody of the law vs. Jurisdiction over the
Person
Notes:
1) One can be under the custody of the law but
not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court
over his person.
e.g.
A person arrested by virtue of a warrant
who files a motion before arraignment to
quash the warrant.
2) One can be subject to the jurisdiction of the
court over his person, and yet not be in the
custody of the law.
e.g.
A person who was initially arrested but who
escapes custody after his trial has
commenced.
In what Instance is Custody of the Law required?
Custody of the law is required before the court
can act upon the application for bail, but is not
required for adjudication of other reliefs sought
by the accused where the mere application
constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of
jurisdiction over his person.
What does custody of law signify?
Custody of the law signifies restraint on the
person. Literally, it is custody over the body of
the accused. It includes detention. (Miranda vs.
Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377)
Before his arrest, A filed a motion for re-
determination of probable cause. The trial court
denied the motion on the ground that it had no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Is the court correct?
NO. The court is wrong in saying that it had no
jurisdiction over the accused since the filing of
the motion signified his submission to its
jurisdiction. The court obviously confused custody
of the law with jurisdiction over the person.
Custody of the law is not required for the
adjudication of reliefs EXCEPT in application
for bail. (David v. Agbay, March 18, 2015)
Can the court ENJOIN the CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION of an accused?
General rule:
NO, injunction will not be granted to stop a
criminal prosecution SINCE public interest
requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the
protection of the society. (Reyes v. Camilon, 192
SCRA 445)
Exceptions:(10)
1. when the injunction is necessary; to afford prosecute him for the same. In such situation,
adequate protection to the constitutional his role loses its discretionary character and
rights of the accused becomes mandatory. And, if he refuses to file
2. when it is necessary for the orderly the case, his acts are tantamount to a
administration of justice or to avoid deliberate refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
oppression or multiplicity of actions; law.
3. when there is a prejudicial question which is
subjudice;
4. when the acts of the officer are without or
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF MTC
in excess of authority;
5. where the prosecution is under an invalid law;
Except in cases under the exclusive original
6. when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
jurisdiction of the RTC and the
7. where the court has no jurisdiction over the
Sandiganbayan, the MTC shall exercise the
offense;
following criminal jurisdiction:
8. where it is case of PERSECUTION rather than
prosecution;
1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
9. where the charges are manifestly false and
violations of City or Municipal Ordinances
motivated by the lust for vengeance;
committed within their territorial jurisdiction
10. when there is clearly no prima facie case
(Sec. 32(1),B.P 129, as amended by R.A
against the accused and a motion to quash on
that ground has been denied. (Brocka v. 7691);
Enrile, 192 SCRA 183; Samson v. Guingona,
Jr., 348 SCRA 32) 2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not
Does mandamus lie to compel criminal exceeding 6 years irrespective of the
prosecution? amount of fine, and other imposable or
 NO, in our criminal justice system, the public accessory penalties, including the civil
prosecutor exercises a wide latitude of liability arising from such offenses
DISCRETION in determining whether a criminal irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount
case shall be filed in court, and the courts must (Sec. 32(2), BP 129, as amended by RA
respect that discretion. 7691);
 Mandamus therefore, will, as a rule, NOT LIE to
compel criminal prosecution. (People v. Yecyec, 3) Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses
739 SCRA 719) involving damage to property through
NEGLIGENCE (Sec. 32(2), BP 129, as
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. amended by RA 7691). (2013);
Reynaldo, 627 SCRA 88)
Mandamus is a remedial measure issued 4) Violations of BP 22 which, as per A.M. No.
when “any tribunal, corporation, board, officer 00-11-01-SC, effective April 5, 2003, shall be
or person unlawfully neglects the under the Rules on Summary Procedure;
performance of an act which the law enjoins
as a duty resulting from an office, trust or 5) Summary procedure in certain cases such as:
station.”
Mandamus is not available to control a) Violation of traffic laws;
discretion.
Neither may it be issued to compel exercise of b) Violation of rental law;
discretion.
c) BP 22 cases;
 It is a matter of discretion for the prosecutor to
d) Violations of municipal or city
determine which persons appear responsible for ordinances
the crime.
 HOWEVER, once he finds one to be so liable, it e) criminal cases where the penalty
becomes his inescapable duty to charge and prescribed is imprisonment not exceeding
 6 months, or a fine not more than 1,000,  mandamus,
or both, irrespective of other imposable  quo warranto,
penalties;  habeas corpus and
 injunction
f) offenses involving damage to
property through negligence where the enforceable in their regions (Sec. 21(1), BP 129,
imposable fine does not exceed 10,000 as amended)
(Sec. 1(B), 1991 Rule on Summary
Procedure) 3) Appellate jurisdiction over all cases
6. Special jurisdiction to decide on decided by the MTC within its territorial
application for bail in the absence of ALL RTC jurisdiction (Sec. 22, BP 129, as amended);
judges in a province. (Sec. 35, BP 129 as
amended by RA 7691) 4) Special jurisdiction of certain branches to
handle exclusively criminal cases as may be
“Except in cases within the exclusive determined by the SC (Sec. 23, BP 129, as
jurisidiction of the RTC and of the amended)
Sandiganbayan”
5) Jurisdiction over criminal cases under
Significance: specific laws such as:
This simply indicates that the MTC does not at all
times have jurisdiction over offenses punishable a) over criminal and civil aspects of
by not more than 6 years like when jurisdiction written defamation (Art. 360, RPC);
is vested by law either in the RTC or
Sandiganbayan.
b) Jurisdiction over designated special
e.g. Libel under Art. 355 of the RPC-Penalty is
courts over cases in Violation of RA 9165
prision correccional in its min. and med. periods
as provided in Sec. 90 thereof
BUT Art. 360 says RTC has jurisdiction over it not
MTC.
c) Jurisdiction of designated RTC
branches for violations of IP rights (AM
Bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC is punishable
by prision correccional in its med. period BUT No. 03-03-03-SC, July 1, 2003,
within the exclusive jurisidiction of the Implementing the IP Code of the
Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of PD 1606, Philippines (RA 8293);J
as amended.
d) Jurisdiction to try all cases on
Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 is punishable by money laundering. However, those
prision correccional in its med. and max. periods, committed by public officers and private
BUT is, likewise, under jurisidiction of the persons, who are in conspiracy with such
Sandiganbayan. public officers, shall be under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 5,
RA 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of
CRIMINAL JURISIDICTION OF THE RTC
2001)

1) Exclusive original in all

jurisdiction
criminal cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, or body except those
now falling under the exclusive and
concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
(Sec. 20,BP 129, as amended by RA 7691);
2) Original jurisdiction in the issuance of
 writs of certiorari,
 prohibition,
Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
(PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975 & RA
8249)
 NOTE:In Serana v. Sandiganbayan, 542
SCRA 224, the SC held that the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is
set by P.D. 1606 as amended, and
NOT by R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, as
amended.
  RA 8249: An Act defining the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan, amending PD
1606, as amended...
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION in ALL cases involving: (Sec.
4, RA 8249,2-5-97)
A. 1) Violations of RA 3019, as amended;
institutions or foundations (People v. Morales,
649 SCRA 182)
(2) Members of congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade “27” and up;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to
the provisions of the Constitution;

2) Violations of RA 1379, An Act Declaring (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional

Forfeiture in Favor of the State any Property Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions
Found To have Been Unlawfully Acquired by of the Constitution; and
Public Officer or Employee;
(5) All other national and local officials
3) Violation of Chapter II, Section 2, Title
classified as Grade 27 and higher;
VII, Book II of the RPC (Bribery in all its
forms including corruption of public officials,
B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
Art. 210-212,RPC) complexed with other crimes committed by the
PROVIDED one or more of the accused are public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection “A” in relations to their office;
officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or
NOTE: As a rule, to make an offense one
interim capacity, at the time of the
committed in relation to the office, “the relation
commission of the offense:
has to be such that, in the legal sense, the
offense cannot exist without the office” (Montilla
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying
v. Hilario, 90 Phil. 49) In other words, the office
positions of regional director and higher,
must be a constituent element of the crime
otherwise classified as Grade “27” and higher
as defined by statute. E.g. bribery, frauds
of the Compensation and Position Classification
committed by public treasury,malversation of
Act of 1989 (RA 6758), INCLUDING:
public funds,etc.-Art. 204-245, RPC)
a) Provincial governors, vice-
governors, members of the sangguniang
NOTE FURTHER:
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
Even if the position is not an essential element or
assessors, engineers, and other provincial
ingredient of the offense charged, if the
department heads;
information avers the intimate connection
b) City Mayors, vice-mayors,
between the office and the offense, this would
members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
bring the offense within the definition of an
treasurer, assessors, engineers, and other
offense “committed in relation to the public
city department heads;
office” (Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627)
c) Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and higher;
Examples:”offense committed in relation to
d) Philippine Army and air force
the public office”:
colonels, naval captains, and all officers of
Consigna v. People, G.R. No. 175750, April 2,
higher rank;
2014
e) officers of the PNP while occupying
 The SC held that when it is alleged and
the position of provincial director and those
subsequently proven that a municipal
holding the rank of senior superintendent or
treasurer capitalized on the functions of the
higher;
office to commit estafa, the crime is said to
f) City and provincial prosecutors and
have been perpetrated in relation to one's
their assistants, and officials and prosecutors
official functions even if public office is not an
in the Office of the Ombudsman and special
element of estafa.
prosecutor;
g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or
Esteban v. Sandiganbayan, 453 SCRA 236.
managers of government-owned or controlled
 Accused moved to quash 2 informations for
corporations, state universities or educational
acts of lasciviousness committed against a
 casual employee in his office, saying the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction
 Motion DENIED. Certiorari under Rule 65 to
the SC.
 Ruling: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction since
the information alleged with clarity that the
accused used his official position to commit
the acts charged.
People v. Montejo, 108 Phil. 613.
Accused city mayor was charged of murder.
The court ruled that the information sufficiently
indicated the existence of acts and events
intimately connected to the public office of the
accused. It alleged that the murder was a
consequence of his act as a mayor; that he
organized armed patrols and civilian commandos
and provided them with arms; that he ordered
the arrest and maltreatment of the victim. While
office is not an element of murder, the offense
was committed while the accused was in the
performance of his functions.
NOTE: In all the cited cases, it is required that
the information must contain the specific
FACTUAL allegations that would indicate the
close intimacy between the discharge of official
functions by the accused and the commission of
the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime
as having been committed in relation to public
office.
Would a mere allegation that the offense was
committed “in relation to the discharge of
one's official functions” sufficient to comply
with the above requirement?
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA
298.
NO. While the amended information for murder
was alleged to have been committed “IN
RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES AS
POLICE OFFICERS”, it contained no specific
allegations of facts that the shooting of the victim
was intimately related to the discharge of the
official functions of the accused.
**The mere allegation that the offense was
committedxxx in relation to his office is not
sufficient. The phrase is merely a conclusion of
law, not a factual averment that would show
close intimacy between the offense charged and
the discharge of accused's duties.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and
in connection with EO Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A,
issued in 1986. Note: Civil jurisdiction is also
exercised by the Sandiganbayan (Antiporda v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551)
Note: OTHER cases falling under jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan:
A. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, resolutions or orders of RTCs
whether in the exercise of their original
jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction;
B. Exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
for 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 under EO Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-
A:provided, that the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the SC.
EO No. 1- Creating the PCGG, Feb. 1, 1986
(recovery of ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos
Family,relatives,dummies,
subordinates,agents, w/o distinction as to
their private or public status & investigation
of graft cases as the President may assign)
e.g. PCGG v. Dumayas, G.R. No. 209447,
August 11, 2015.
The SC held that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
suits involving the sequestered coco levy assets
and coco levy funds. It is within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan.
EO No. 2- Freeze order against all assets and
properties in the Philippines in which the
Marcos family, their relatives, dummies,
subordinates, agents, etc., have any interest
or participation.
EO Nos. 14 & 14-A-vesting in the
Sandiganbayn original and exclusive
JURISDICTION over criminal & civil suits filed
by the PCGG/Granting the PCGG authority to
grant immunity from criminal prosecution.
C. Violation of RA 9160, Anti-Money Laundering
Act of 2001;
D. Violation of RA 7080, An Act Defining and
Penalizing the Crime of Plunder;

Does salary grade alone determine

jurisidiction of the Sandiganbayan?

NO. While the first part of Sec. 4(a) of PD 1606,

as amended, covers only officials with salary
grade 27 and higher, the second part thereof
specifically includes other executive officials
whose positions may not be with salary grade 27
and higher but who are by EXPRESS provision of
the law under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.(Geduspan v. People,51 SCRA
187
Rule 110
I. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Who are the parties in a criminal action?
The parties are the People of the Philippines
and the accused. The offended party is
regarded merely as a witness for the state
Why is the offended party regarded as a
mere witness?
The purpose of criminal action is to determine
the penal liability of the accused for having
outraged the state with his crime. (Heirs of Sarah
Marie Palma Burgos v. CA, 169711, February 8,
2010)
How are criminal actions instituted?
It generally depends on whether or not the
offense is one which requires preliminary
investigation (Sec. 1, Rule 110)
1) Where PI is required- instituted by filing the
complaint with the proper officer for the
requisite PI.
2) Where PI is NOT required- instituted in either
2 ways:
a) by filing directly with the MTC and MCTC;
or
b) by filing with the prosecutor's office
(Sec. 1, Rule 110)
How about in Manila & other chartered
cities?
Special rule: by filing with the prosecutor's
office unless otherwise provided in the charter
(Sec. 1, Rule 110)
Is there direct filing with the RTC? Why?
NONE because its jurisdiction covers offenses
which require Preliminary Investigation.
Is there direct filing in Manila/other
chartered cities?
NONE because as a rule, the complaint shall be
filed with the prosecutor's office.
Exception:
If the charter provides otherwise. (Sec. 1, Rule
110)
In what offenses is PI required/not
required?
Preliminary investigation is required for
offenses where the penalty is at least 4 years, 2
months and 1 day(Sec. 1, Rule 112)
Is it correct to say that ALL offenses under the
jurisdiction of the MTC do not require Preliminary
Investigation? Why?
NO. Take note of the following:
RTC jurisdiction: over offenses punishable
by imprisonment of more than 6 years, way
above the minimum penalty for offenses that
require PI.
MTC jurisdiction: over offenses punishable
by not more than 6 years. (Sec. 32(2), BP
129, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).
P.I. is required in offenses punishable by
4 years, 2 months and 1 day, which is
well within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
What is the effect of the filing of the
criminal action on the Prescriptive
Period?
*Sec. 1 categorically says that it shall interrupt
the period of prescription of the offense charged
UNLESS otherwise provided in special laws.
NOTE: Since Rule 110 provides that one of the
ways of instituting the criminal action is by filing
with the proper officer for the conduct of PI for
offenses that require it, such filing with the
proper officer for the requisite PI shall interrupt
the prescriptive period.
NOTES:
*For offenses where PI is not required, the filing
with the MTC or with the prosecutor's office shall
interrupt the period.
*In Manila and other chartered cities, the filing
with the prosecutor interrupts the period.
Until when is the prescriptive period
suspended?
Until such time that the accused is either
CONVICTED or ACQUITTED by the proper
court. (People v. Bautista, GR No. 168641, April
27, 2007)

Rule on PRESCRIPTION for violations of
Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances:
ACT 3326, as amended, governs the period for
prescription for violations of special laws and
municipal ordinances.
Section 1.  It held that Act 3326 says that the period of
Violations penalized by SPECIAL ACTS shall,
unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe
in accordance with the following rules:
(a) after a year for offenses punished only by a
fine or by imprisonment for not more than
one month, or both;
(b) after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but
less than two years;
(c) after eight years for those punished by
imprisonment for two years or more, but
less than six years; and
(d) after twelve years for any other offense
punished by imprisonment for six years or
more, except the crime of treason, which
shall prescribe after twenty years.
(e) Violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two
months.
Prescriptive period More than Less than
After 1 year Not more than 1 month
After 4 years 1 month 2 years
After 8 years 2 yrs or more 6 years
After 12 years 6 years or more, except treason
(after 20 years)
2 months Violations penalized by Municipal
Ordinances
Sec. 2.  before the TAPP.
Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if
the same be not known at the time, from the
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons NOT
constituting jeopardy. 
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, SPECIAL
ACTS shall be acts defining and penalizing
violations of the law not included in the Penal
Code.
Notable cases re Act 3326:
1) Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277, a case
involving an offense punishable by a municipal
ordinance.
prescription shall be suspended when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, the proceedings being “judicial
proceedings and not administrative.”
Recent cases seemingly abandoned the Zaldivia
ruling:
1) Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim, GR No.
168662, February 19, 2008
-Violation of Intellectual property Code.
A complaint was filed with the Task force on
Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) of the
DOJ.
The complaint was dismissed by TAPP for
insufficiency of evidence. It was appealed up
to the CA which affirmed the dismissal on the
ground of prescription since no complaint was
filed in court pursuant to Act 3326.
Ruling:
The prescriptive period for violation of special
laws starts on the day such offense was
committed and IS INTERRUPTED BY THE
INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT. The prescriptive period for the
prosecution of violation of the IPC was tolled by
the petitioner's timely filing of the complaint
2) Panaguiton Jr v. DOJ, GR. No.- 167571, 11-
25-08-Violation of BP 22.
QC Prosecutor dismissed the complaint on the
ground of prescription (4 years). The DOJ
affirmed the dismissal. The CA dismissed
certiorari petition on technical grounds.
Before the SC, the respondent invoked the
Zaldivia ruling to support the dismissal of the
complaint.
Ruling:
The filing of the complaint with the prosecutor
signified the commencement of the
proceedings for the prosecution of the
 accused and thus, EFFECTIVELY
INTERRUPTED THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD.
The court explained that when Act 3326 was
passed, PI could be conducted by justices of
the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law,
“INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
FOR ITS INVESTIGATION AND PUNISHMENT
xxx”.
3) SEC v. Interport Resources Corp., GR No.
135808, 10-6-08-Violation of Revised
Securities Act.
Ruling:
o It is established doctrine that a preliminary
investigation interrupts the prescriptive
period. The investigation commenced by SEC,
pursuant to its powers under the securities
Act, effectively interrupted the prescriptive
period.
NOTE:
Sanrio, Panaguiton and SEC cases cited above
uniformly held that the filing of the affidavit
complaint for PI interrupted the running of
the prescriptive period for violations of
special laws.
People v. Pangilinan, 672 SCRA 105, June
13, 2012.
In this more recent case where the issue of
whether or not the filing of the criminal action for
violation of BP 22 has already prescribed, the
court held:
“There is no more distinction between cases
under the RPC and those under special laws with
respect to the interruption of the period of
prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. is
not controlling in special laws. In Llenes v.
Dicdican, Ingco,et.al., v. Sandiganbayan,
Brillante v. CA, and Sanrio Company Ltd. v. Lim,
cases involving special laws, this court held that
the institution of proceedings for preliminary
investigation against the accused interrupts the
period of prescription.
In SEC v. Interport Resources Corp, et.al., the
court even ruled that investigations conducted by
the SEC for violations of the Revised Security Act
and the Securities Regulation Code effectively
interrupts the prescriptive period because it is
equivalent to the preliminary investigation
conducted by the DOC in criminal cases.
How about filing of a case with the
Ombudsman?
This also effectively interrupts the prescriptive
period.
In Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
169823-24, 9-11-13, it was held that:
“The prevailing rule is, therefore, that
irrespective of whether the offense charged is
punishable by the RPC or by a special law, it
is the filing of the complaint or information in
the office of the public prosecutor for
purposes of preliminary investigation that
interrupts the period of prescription”.
How about crimes required to be referred to
the barangay?
Sec. 410, RA 7160, Local Government Code of
1991, provides the Procedure for Amicable
Settlement. Under par. (c) on suspension of
prescriptive period of offenses, the prescriptive
period is suspended temporarily once the
complaint is filed with the Punong
Barangay, but such suspension shall last for
60 days only from the filing of the
complaint.
The prescriptive period shall RESUME upon
receipt by the complainant of the certificate of
repudiation or certificate to file action.
Does the rule on interruption of prescription
still apply if the court is without
jurisdiction?
YES. The running of the period of prescription is
interrupted with the filing of the action even if
the court in which the action was first filed is
without jurisdiction.
Notable cases:
1) In People v. Galano, an information was filed
with the Batangas RTC even though the
evidence of both parties shows that the crime
was committed in Manila.
Ruling:
Applying People v. Olarte, the court held that it
was only when the trial court dismissed the case
due to lack of jurisdiction that “the proceedings
therein terminated without conviction and
acquittal and it was only then that the
prescriptive period (which was interrupted during
the pendency of the case in the Batangay RTC)
commenced to run again.”
2) In People v. Enrile, where informations were
filed against civilians with the military tribunal
which had no jurisdiction over them, the court,
applying the Olarte case, threw out the defense
of prescription when the cases were filed before
the civil courts. At the very least, the filing of the
first charges interrupted the prescriptive period
notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the
military tribunal.
3) Reodica v. CA, an information for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property was
filed with the RTC.
Ruling: The court, citing Olarte and other
subsequent cases, ruled that “the prescriptive
period for the quasi-offenses in question was
interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the
fiscal's office 3 days after the accident and
remained tolled pending termination of the case.”
NOTE: All the above cases were cited in
Arambulo v. Laqui, Sr., 342 SCRA 740)
II. PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION
WHO must prosecute the criminal action?
All criminal actions shall be prosecuted under
the direct supervision and control of the
public prosecutor.
Even if there is a private prosecutor, the
criminal action is still under the direction
and control of the public prosecutor.
Can a private prosecutor appear?
YES. The appearance of a private prosecutor
is allowed ONLY when the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is filed with the
criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 (Sec. 16,
Rule 110).
The engagement or appointment of a private
prosecutor is done by the offended party and
it is the mode by which he intervenes in the
prosecution of the offense.
When is a private prosecutor NOT allowed?
When the offended party:
1) WAIVES the civil action;
2) RESERVES the right to file the civil action;
and
3) institutes the civil action PRIOR to the
criminal action.
What is the effect of an independent civil
action on the right of the offended party to
intervene through a private prosecutor?
The filing of an independent civil action does not
deprive the offended party the right to intervene
through a private prosecutor.
NOTE that under Sec. 1, Rule 111, what is
deemed instituted with the criminal action is the
civil action to recover civil liability arising from
the offense charged.
Take Note: Those not arising from the
offense charged like independent civil actions
under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
are not deemed instituted with the criminal
action.
These independent civil actions, according to Sec.
3, Rule 111, shall proceed independently of the
criminal action. No need for reservation under
the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure because
they can proceed separately from the criminal
action.
THUS, as a consequence of the independent
character of actions brought under
a) Arts. 32(civil & political rights),
b) 33 (defamation/fraud/physical injuries),
c) 34 (failure to render aid by peace officer)
and
d) 2176(quasi-delict caused by
fault/negligence) of the Civil Code,
even if a civil action based on these is filed, the
ex-delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution
remains. Hence, the offended party may still
intervene through a private prosecutor.
WHO must prosecute criminal actions in the
MTC or MCTC?
The public prosecutor MUST prosecute criminal
actions in the MTC.
Is there any exemption to this rule?
EXCEPTION:
When the Public Prosecutor is NOT available, the
following may be allowed to prosecute:(Sec. 5,
Rule 110, as amended by AM 02-2-7-SC &
clarified in OCA Circular No. 39, August 21,
2002)
a. Private prosecutor
b. offended
c. peace officer
d. public officer charged with the enforcement
of the law violated.
A.M. No. 02-2-7-SC, May 1, 2002, amending
Sec. 5, Rule 110)
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. -
All criminal actions either commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of
the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of
public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
approval of the court.
Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal
action, the private prosecutor shall continue to
prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in
the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the
authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. "
OCA CIRCULAR 39-2002, AUGUST 21, 2002
The Supreme Court En Banc in its Resolution
dated 10 April 2002, in A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, RE:
Proposed Amendments to Section 5, Rule 110 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Resolved to approve the amendment to Sec. 5,
Rule 110 to read as follows:
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.
— (as quoted above)
Take Note:
The aforequoted resolution did not state the
entire first (1st) paragraph of Section 5, Rule 110
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
resulting to confusion on the right of the offended
party, any peace officer or public officer to
prosecute the criminal cases before the Municipal
Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when
the public prosecutor is not available. Despite
such omission, such right on the part of the
offended party, peace officer or public
officer to prosecute the criminal case in the
aforementioned courts is still in effect and
not withdrawn.
It is therefore necessary to state in toto the first
(1st) paragraph of Section 5, Rule 110, as
amended by the Supreme Court Resolution dated
10 April 2002 in A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC as follows:
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.
— All criminal actions either commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor.In case of heavy work schedule of the
public prosecutor, or in the event of lack of public
prosecutors,
the private prosecutor may be authorized in
writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or
the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the
case subject to the approval of the court. Once so
authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the
private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the
case up to the end of the trial even in the
absence of a public prosecutor, unless the
authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor
assigned thereto or to the case is not
available, the offended party, any peace officer,
or public officer charged with the enforcement of
the law violated may prosecute the case. This
authority shall cease upon actual intervention of
the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to
the Regional Trial Court.
How are offenses in violation of special laws
prosecuted?
They shall be prosecuted pursuant to the
provisions of said (special) law (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
III. PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE CRIMES 1) It is filed in the name of the PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and against all who appear
How are private crimes prosecuted? responsible for the offense.
2) The private offended parties are only
1) Adultery & concubinage: witnesses for the prosecution.
ONLY upon the complaint of offended 3) They cannot appeal the CRIMINAL aspect BUT
spouse (Sec. 5, Rule 110). only as to the civil aspect.
MUST be filed against BOTH guilty
parties, unless one is dead (Sec. 5, Rule INFORMATION:
110)
may not be filed if the offended spouse What is an Information?
has consented to the offense or has It is an accusation in writing charging a person
pardoned the offenders, express or with an offense subscribed by the prosecutor and
implied (Sec. 5, Rule 110) filed with the court. (Sec. 4, Rule 110)
Prosecutor cannot prosecute where no
complaint is filed by the offended spouse. It is filed in the name of the PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and against all who appear
2)Seduction, abduction & acts of responsible.
lasciviousness:
ONLY upon complaint by the offended Complaint vs. Information
party OR her parents, grandparents or
guardian. Complaint Inforemation
Effect of EXPRESS pardon by any of the It must be sworn, It requires no oath
above: serves as a BAR to criminal hence, under oath *since the prosecutor
prosecution for any of these crimes. is acting under the
a minor offended party can file the oath of his office
complaint independently of her parents, Subscribed by the Subscribed by the
grandparents or guardian. (Sec. 5, Rule Offended Party, prosecutor
110) Peace Officer, Other
if minor dies or is incapacitated before she Public Officer
can file and no known parents, charged with the
grandparents or guardian, the State may enforcement of the
file (Sec. 5, Rule 110). law violated

3) DEFAMATION for imputing the offenses

of adultery, concubinage, seduction, or acts
of lasciviousness:
ONLY upon the complaint of the offended party.
IV. THE COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION
What is a COMPLAINT?
It is a sworn written statement charging
person with an offense, subscribed by the
offended party, any peace officer, or other public
officer charged with the enforcement of law
violated. (Sec. 3, Rule 110)
COMPLAINT:
What is the effect of infirmity in the
signature in the information?
An infirmity, such as lack of authority of the
officer signing it cannot be cured by silence,
acquiescence, or even by express consent.
Sufficiency of the complaint/information
It is deemed sufficient if it contains the
followings:
a
a. name of the accused;
b. designation of the offense given by statute;
c. acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense;
d. name of the offended party;
e. approximate date of commission; and
 f. place of commission (Sec. 6, Rule 110;
Enrile v. Manalastas, 739 SCRA 49)
What is the test for sufficiency of the
complaint or information?
The test is whether the crime is described in
intelligible terms with such particularity as
to apprise the accused with reasonable
certainty, of the offense charged to enable
him to suitably prepare for his defense
(Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 581 SCRA
431).
NOTE:
1) Whether an information charges an offense
depends on whether the material facts
alleged shall establish the essential
elements of the offense charged. Thus, for
an information to be sufficient, it must validly
charge an offense. (Miguel v. Sandiganbayan,
675 SCRA 560)
2) An Information is fatally defective when it is
clear that it does not charge an offense or
when an essential element of the crime has
not been sufficiently alleged (People v.
Posada, 667 SCRA 790).
When can one raise any question as to the
sufficiency of the complaint or information?
Upon arraignment or during trial. Failure to do
so is deemed a waiver, such as when accused
voluntarily entered a plea and participated in the
trial. (Frias v. People, G.R. No. 171437, 10-4-
07).
How about as to form?
Objections as to form, such as when the
information does not conform to prescribed form,
must likewise be made before arraignment and
cannot be made for the first time on appeal
(People v. Teodoro,607 SCRA 307; People v.
runcas, 664 SCRA 182).
NOTE:
However, where the OBJECTION is based on
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the same may be raised or considered motu
proprio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or on appeal (Fuluzume v. People,
474 SCRA 570)
What determines the NATURE and
CHARACTER of the offense charged?
**It is determined not from the caption or
preamble of the information, or from the
specification of the provision of law violated,
which are mere conclusions of law, but by the
recitals of the ultimate facts and circumstances in
the information (People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA
272).
**Even if the designation of the crime is
defective, what is controlling is the allegation of
the facts in the information that comprises a
crime and adequately describes the nature and
cause of the accusation(People v. Anguac, 588
SCRA 716).
Date of commission of the offense
Is it necessary to state the precise date of
commission?
NO. Sec. 11, Rule 110 provides that it is not
necessary EXCEPT when the date of commission
is a material element of the offense. Thus, the
offense may be alleged to have been committed
on a date as near as possible to the actual date
of commission (People v. Canares, 579 SCRA
588).
In crimes where the date of commission is not
a material element, like murder, rape, or
qualified theft, it is not necessary to allege such
date with absolute certainty in the information.
The Rules of Court merely requires, for the sake
of properly informing an accused, that the date
of commission be approximated (People v.
Teodoro, 607 SCRA 307; People v. Zapanta, 694
SCRA 25; People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572,July
9,2014). In these cases, the terms used were:
“in the first week of July 1995”; “sometime
in the month of October 2001”; “on or about
the 27th day of November 2000”.
People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, 01-15-14
The phrase “on or about the year 1992” was held
to encompass not only the twelve months of
1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent
to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for which accused
has to virtually account for his whereabouts.
Hence, the failure of the prosecution to allege
with particularity the date of commission of the
offense and, worse, its failure to prove during the
trial the date of commission as alleged in the
information, deprived accused of his right to
intelligently prepare for his defense.
How to state Name of the accused:
Section 7, Rule 110 gives the rules:
a) state the name and surname of the accused,
or any appellation or nickname by which he
has been or is known;
b) if first name cannot be ascertained, describe
him under a fictitious name, BUT such
description must be accompanied by a
statement that his true name is unknown;
c) Once his name is diclosed by him or
becomes known, his true name shall be
inserted in the information and in the records
of the case.
NOTES:
1) Positive identification pertains
essentially to the proof of identity. A mistake
in the name is not equivalent to mistake in
the identity of the accused especially when
sufficient evidence is adduced to show that
the accused is pointed to as one of the
perpetrators (People v. Amodia, 584 SCRA
518);
2) What matters in convicting an accused is
his identification as the person who
committed the crime, not the name under
which he was arrested or charged(People v.
Bonito, 342 SCRA 405)
3) The identity of the accused must,
however, be proven. Where in identifying the
accused who allegedly raped her, the victim
showed reluctance in identifying the accused
then eventually pointed to the accused that
“it might be him,” the identification is
uncertain (People v. Tumambing, 644 SCRA
482)
How to state Name of the offended party:
Who is the offended party?
The person against whom or whose property the
offense was committed. (Sec. 12, Rule 110)
How to state his name?
a) State the name and surname, or any
appellation or nickname by which he is
known;
b) If not known, describe him under a fictitious
name;
c) If true name is later known, cause it to be
inserted. (Sec. 12, Rule 110)
How to state a Juridical person as offended
party:
It is sufficient to state its name, or any name or
designation by which it is known or by which it
may be identified, WITHOUT need of averring
that it is a juridical person or that it is organized
in accordance with law (Sec. 12(c), Rule 110)
Rule if name of offended party is unknown
in crimes against property:
In offenses against property, if the name of the
offended party is not known, the PROPERTY
MUST be described with such particularity as to
properly identify the offense charged (Sec. 12(a),
Rule 110)
NOTE: If the subject matter of the offense is
generic and not identifiable, such as xxx
money unlawfully takenxxx, an error in the
designation of the offended party is FATAL
and would result to the acquittal of the accused.
However, if the subject matter of the offense is
specific and identifiable, such as a jewelry with a
specific designation, an error in the
designation of the offended party is immaterial
and is not violative of the constitutional right of
the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against her (Seandor v.
People, 692 SCRA 669)
How to state Designation of the offense:
Sec. 8, Rule 110 gives the rules:
d) the name given to the offense by statute shall
be stated in the information or complaint.
If the statute gives no designation, then
reference shall be made to the section or
subsection punishing it;
e) Include in the complete designation of the
offense an averment of the acts or omissions
constituting the offense;
f) the information shall specify the qualifying
and aggravating circumstances.
What is the EFFECT of failure to designate
the offense given by statute or to mention
the provision violated?
**It does not vitiate the information if the
facts alleged clearly recite the facts constituting
the crime charged. What determines the crime
charged in the information is the recital of facts
of the commission of the offense, not the
nomenclature of the offense.(Malto v. People,
533 SCRA 642)
**There is no rule which requires that the
information must state the particular law under
which the accused is charged in order for it to be
sufficient and valid (Licyayo v. People, 547 SCRA
598).
NOTE:
All qualifying or aggravating circumstances
must be alleged IN THE INFORMATION.
If NOT, the court cannot take them into
consideration in the imposition of the penalty
even if proven during the trial. (Sec. 8,9, Rule
110; People v. Tampus, G.R. No. 181084, June
16, 2009)
How to state Cause of the accusation:
The information must allege clearly and
accurately the elements of the crime
charged. What facts and circumstances are
necessary to be included therein must be
determined by reference to the definition and
elements of the specific crimes.
The purpose is to inform an accused of the
nature of the accusation against him to
suitably prepare for his defense. Another
purpose is to enable him, if found guilty, to
plead his conviction in a subsequent
prosecution for the same offense (Serapio v.
Sandiganbayan,396 SCRA 443)
Sec. 9, Rule 110 provides the rules:
It is sufficient for the information to use
ordinary and concise language to enable a
person of common understanding to know the
following:
a) the offense being charged;
b) the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; and
c) the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
What is the rule on DUPLICITY OF OFFENSE
as charged in the information?
General Rule:
the complaint or information must charge only
one offense. EXCEPT that more than one offense
may be charged when the law prescribes a
single punishment for various offenses. (Sec.
13, Rule 110)
NOTE: Objections on the ground of duplicity
must be raised before trial, otherwise it is
deemed waived. (Sec. 3, Rule 120)
Purpose of the rule:
The purpose of the rule prohibiting
duplicitous complaints is:
to give the accused the necessary
knowledge of the charge against him
and
enable him to sufficiently prepare for
his defense. (People v. CA, G.R. no.
183652, 02-25-15)
Exception to the rule:
(1) when the law prescribes a single penalty
for various offenses as in COMPLEX and
COMPOUND CRIMES under Art. 48, RPC;
e.g.
a) When a single bullet killed 2 persons, there is
complex crime since there was only a single
act which produced 2 crimes (People v.
Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32)
b) A single act of throwing a grenade resulting
to the killing of one and injuring others, a
single information under Art. 48 may
be charged (People v. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307)
c) When a single shot killed one and seriously
injured another, is a complex crime
chargeable under one information (People v.
Madali, 188 SCRA 69);
d) Malversation of public funds through
falsification of public documents may be
contained under a single information under
Art. 48. The falsification was done to
misappropriate the funds (People v. Sivallana,
61 Phil. 636)
e) Falsification of a cedula to commit
malversation is a complex crime (People v.
Barbas, 60 Phil. 241)
(2) in SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES where a
single penalty is also imposed.
Ex. a) Art. 266-B, RPC=Rape with
homicide
b) Art. 267,RPC=Kidnapping with homicide/rape
c) Art. 294=Robbery with homicide
(3) In CONTINUED or CONTINUOUS CRIMES
as when the offense is a series of acts committed
on the same period and impelled by a single
intent or resolution (delito continuado)
Ex: Santiago v. Garchitorena, 288 SCRA 214,
where the act of approving the application for
legalization of the stay of 32 aliens despite their
allegedly being disqualified is but a single offense
to be charged under one information only.
The Santiago case further explained:
Applying the concept of delito continuado, we
treated as constituting only one offense the
following cases:
1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to 2 different
owners committed by the accused at the
same time and at the same period of time
(People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320);
2) The theft of 6 roosters belonging to 2
different owners from the same coop and at
the same eriod of time (People v. Jaranillo, 55
SCRA 563);
3) The theft 2 roosters in the same place and on
the same occasion (People v. De Leon, 49
Phil. 437);
4) The collection of legal fees by a lawyer
everytime he collects veteran's benefits on
behalf of a client, who agreed that the legal
fees shall be paid out of said benefits (People
v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156);
NOTE HOWEVER:
1) People v. Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32, citing
People v. Desierto, C.A. 45 O.G. 4542)
When several people are killed by separate
bullets from a single automatic weapon, Art. 48
is not applicable because the death of each of
the persons who were killed were NOT caused by
the performance by the accused of one simple
act. death caused is a distinct and separate shot
fired by the accused. Although the burst of shots
was caused by one single act of pressing the
trigger of the automatic weapon, the person
firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger with
his finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it
is not the single act of pressing the trigger which
produced the several felonies, but the number of
bullets which were discharged.
2) People v. Lucena, G.R. No. 190632,
February 26, 2014.
**The appellant should be convicted of 3
counts of rape because he succeeded in inserting
his penis into the private part of the victim.The 3
consecutive penetrations occurred one after the
other at an interval of 5 minutes. Hence, it can
be clearly be inferred that when he decided to
commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual
assault, he was not motivated by a single
impulse, but rather by several criminal intents.
The Aaron case invoked by the accused
cannot apply. In the said case, the accused
inserted his penis into the victim's vagina thrice
after directing the latter twice to change position
each time he inserted his penis. The court viewed
the 3 penetrations as having occurred during one
continuing act of rape motivated by a single
criminal intent.
V. VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
NOTES:
Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional and a
court is without jurisdiction to try an offense
committed outside its limited jurisdiction.
Thus, it has been ruled that the place where the
crime was committed determines not only the
VENUE of the action but is an essential element
of JURISDICTION. (Trenas v People, 664 SCRA
355)
The rule states that the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory:
a) where the offense was committed, or
b) where any of its elements occurred.
(Sec. 15(a), Rule 110, Union Bank of the
Philippines v. People, 667 SCRA 113)
VENUE: Element of criminal jurisdiction
To reiterate, venue in criminal actions is
jurisdictional. Hence, the court cannot exercise
jurisdiction over a person charged with an
offense committed outside its limited territory.
This is because venue is an element of
jurisdiction.
Thus, Sec. 6, Rule 110 requires that the
complaint, to be deemed sufficient, should state
the place where the offense was committed.
In Union Bank of the Philippines v. People,
667 SCRA 113, the court elucidated on the rule
by saying that “Venue is an essential element of
jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not
only the place where the action is to be filed, but
also the court which has jurisdiction to try and
hear the case. The reason is two-fold:
1st: the jurisdiction is limited to well-defined
territories such that a court can only hear and try
cases involving crimes committed within its
territorial jurisdiction.
2nd: laying the venue in the locus criminis is
grounded on the necessity and justice of having
an accused on trial in the place where the
witnesses and other facilities for his defense are
available.
Finally, the court said, a finding of IMPROPER
VENUE in criminal cases carries jurisdictional
consequences.
What is the consequence?
Improper venue in criminal cases means
lack of jurisdiciton. Thus, it is ground to
dismiss or quash under Sec. 3, Rule 117, the
ground being “the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged.
EXCEPTIONS: to the rule that the offense
must be filed and tried in the place of
commission:
1) Where the offense was committed under
circumstances enumerated in Art. 2, RPC,
the offense is cognizable in Philippine courts
even if committed outside the territory. The
offense shall be cognizable by the court
where the action is first filed. (Sec. 15(d),
Rule 110);
2) Where the SC orders change of venue or
place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice
(Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution);
3) Offense committed in a train, aircraft, or
other public or private vehicle in the course of
its trip, the action need not be filed in the
actual place of commission. It may be filed
and tried in the court of any municipality or
territory where said train, aircraft, or vehicle
passed during its trip. It may also be filed
and tried in the place of departure and
arrival (Sec. 15(b), Rule 110)
4) offense committed on board a vessel in the
course of its voyage. It can be filed in the
place of commission, in the court of first
port of entry, or in the court of the place
where the vessel passed during the
voyage. (Sec. 15(c), Rule 110)
Take Note: In crimes committed on board a
vessel, departure and arrival are not included
as venue.
5) Where the offense is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, the action need not be filed
and tried in the place of commission but
generally, where the court actually sits in
Quezon City.
NOTE: Under Sec. 2 of RA 8249, An Act Further
Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
when the greater convenience of the
accused and of the witnesses, or other
compelling considerations so require, a case
originating from one geographical region may be
heard in another region. For this purpose, the
presiding justice shall authorize any divisions of
the court to hold sessions at any time and place
outside Metro Manila and, where the interest
of justice so requires, outside the territorial
boundaries of the Philippines.
6) In Written defamation, the criminal action
may be filed:
(a) RTC of the province where the libelous
article was printed and first published
 whether the offended party is a public 5) Merely alleging that the defamatory article
official or private person; was published in “Smart File”, a magazine of
(b) RTC of the province or city where the general circulation in Manila, did not establish
offended party held office at the time of the the printing of the magazine in Manila where
commission of the offense if he is a public the action was filed (Chavez v. CA, 514 SCRA
officer whose office at the time of 279)
commission is outside Manila; 6) Merely alleging that the libelous article “was
(c) RTC of Manila where offended party is a published in the PDI,” a newspaper of general
public official whose office at the time of circulation in Baguio City, did not clearly
commission is in Manila; establish Baguio City to be the proper venue
(d) RTC of the province or city where he of the printing and first publication of the
actually resided at the time of the newspaper (Agustin v. Pamintuan, 467 SCRA
commission of the offense if he is a private 601)
individual.(Agbayani v. Sayo, 89 SCRA 7) Venue of civil actions for damages in cases of
699) written defamation (Art. 360, RPC):
RTC whether filed simultaneously
with the criminal action or separately,
no need to compute the jurisdictional
amount under BP 129 since the law
NOTES/CASES: says the RTC has jurisdiction.
Venue is, as a rule, the place where
1) If the complainant used the circumstances as the libelous article was PRINTED and
to where the libel was printed and first first PUBLISHED or where any of
published as basis for the venue, the the PRIVATE offended parties actually
information must specifically allege where the resides at the time of the commission
defamatory article was printed and first of the offense OR where he held office
published, as shown by, for instance, the if he is a public officer.
address of their editorial or business offices in
the case of newspapers, magazines or serial
publications. (Bonifacio,et.al., v. RTC of
Makati Br. 149, 629 SCRA 268)
2) As to a defamatory material appearing on a
website on the internet, the place where the
material was first accessed cannot be equated
with “printing and first publication. To hold so
would open the floodgates to the libel suit
being filed in all other locations where the
website is likewise accessed or capable of
being accessed(Ibid);
3) Merely alleging “that the newspaper is a daily
publication with considerable circulation in the
City of Iloilo and throughout the region” does
not establish that the said publication was
printed and first published in Iloilo City (Foz,
Jr. v. People, 603 SCRA 124)
4) Merely alleging that the offended party is a
physician in a particular place does not clearly
indicate that said person is residing in such
place at the time of the commission of the
crime (Ibid).