Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 20

BASIC CONCEPTS

Cariaga v. People, 626 SCRA 231


What is CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?  Accused’s counsel erroneously appealed her
- treats of the rules and processes by which the conviction to the CA instead of to the
criminal laws are enforced and by which the Sandiganbayan.
State prosecutes those who violate such laws.  Should the rules on appeal be strictly followed,
the appeal shall be dismissed for having been
In People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267, the court filed with the wrong court.
defined procedural law, as applied in criminal  How should the court rule?
law, as one that “provides or regulates the steps
by which one who committed a crime is to be Ruling:
punished.” The SC held that since the appeal involved a
criminal case and the possibility of a person
Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial system being deprived of liberty due to a procedural
lapse is great, a relaxation of the rule was
ADVERSARIAL warranted.

1) Contemplates two contending parties before Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal
the court. Jurisdiction
2) The judge cannot act as an inquisitor who Basic requisites before a court can acquire
pursues his own investigation. jurisdiction over a criminal case are:
3) The court has a passive role and relies a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
largely on the evidence presented by both b) Jurisdiction over the Territory; and
sides. c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
(Cruz v. CA, 388 SCRA 72)

INQUISITORIAL Criminal Jurisdiction over the


SUBJECT MATTER
1) The court plays an active role as it  This refers to the authority of the court to
participates in gathering facts and evidence. hear and determine a particular criminal case.
2) the court is not limited to the evidence  In short, it is jurisdiction over the offense
presented as it may utilize evidence gathered charged.
outside the court.  In Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551,
3) the court directs and supervises the gathering the court described such jurisdiction as the
of evidence and questioning of witnesses. 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,
What is our system of procedure? authorized to take cognizance of.
 It is accusatorial or adversarial.
 It is a two-sided structure consisting of the How is it conferred?
PROSECUTION & ACCUSED.
 The prosecution and accused will present Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
evidence. CONFERRED by LAW and any judgment, order or
 In deciding, the court cannot consider resolution issued without it is void and cannot be
evidence not formally offered. given effect. (Magno vs. People, 647 SCRA
362,371).
Interpretation of the Rules
The rules on criminal procedure shall be
“LIBERALLY construed in order to promote their (Apo Cement Corp. vs. Mingson Minging
objective of securing a JUST, SPEEDY and Industries Corp., G.R. No. 206728, November
INEXPENSIVE disposition of every action and 12, 2014.)
proceeding.” (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court:) 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 General Rule:
disregard of that right is void for lack of Under this principle, the jurisdiction of the court
jurisdiction. is referred to as “continuing” since once a court
acquires jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
Can it be acquired or waived by omission? continues until the court has done all that it
Jurisdiction over the subject matter CANNOT be: can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
 acquired through a WAIVER or • Hence, once the court acquires
 enlarged by the OMISSION of the parties or jurisdiction, it may not be ousted by
 conferred by the ACQUIESCENCE of the subsequent events, such as a new law
court. placing it to another court.
(Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, February
12, 2014) Exceptions:
1. When there is an express provision in the
What law determines it? new statute, OR
 Jurisdiction to try criminal cases is 2. The statute is clearly intended to apply to
DETERMINED by the law in effect at the actions pending before its enactment.
time of the (People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, Palana v.
commencement/institution/filing of the People, 534 SCRA 303)
action/complaint or information.
 (People v. Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212,227; When may OBJECTIONS on jurisdictional
Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296,302; Asistio grounds BE RAISED?
v. People, G.R. No. 200465, April 20, 2015) • At any stage of the proceedings.
• It may even be raised for the first time
Can it be presumed? on appeal.
 NO. When the law confers jurisdiction, it must • The court may even consider it motu
be clear. proprio at any stage of the proceedings
 It cannot be presumed. or on appeal. (Fukuzume v. People, 474
 It must appear from the statute or will not SCRA 570; Foz v. People, 603 SCRA 124;
be held to exist. (De Jesus v. Garcia, 19 SCRA Atienza v. People, February 12, 2014)
554)
Is there any limitation to one’s right to raise
How is it determined? the issue of jurisdiction?
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the ALLEGATIONS in the • YES. By way of EXCEPTION, In
complaint of information and not by the Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551,
FINDINGS based on the evidence after trial. the court held that a party cannot invoke the
(Mobilia Products v. Umezawa, 452 SCRA jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative
736). relief against his opponent and after
 It is not determined by the defenses set up obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
by the accused. (Rapsing v. Ables, 684 SCRA repudiate or question that same
195) jurisdiction.
• This is known as BAR BY LACHES or
ESTOPPEL, an exception for reasons of
What penalty determines such jurisdiction? public policy. (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23
• It is the penalty imposable by law on SCRA 29; Pangilinan v. CA, 321 SCRA 51).
the offense charged and not by the penalty
actually imposed after trial.
• It is the penalty imposable by law on Criminal Jurisdiction over the
the basis of the facts as recited in the PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
complaint or information. (People v. This refers to the authority of the court, not
Buissan, 105 SCRA 547) over the subject matter of the criminal litigation,
but over the person charged. This requires
Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction or that the person charged must have been brought
Continuing Jurisdiction?
into the court for trial. (Antiporda v. A person arrested by virtue of a warrant
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551) who files a motion before arraignment to
quash the warrant.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON of the
accused is ACQUIRED as follows: 2) One can be subject to the jurisdiction of the
court over his person, and yet not be in the
a) upon his arrest, with or without warrant; or custody of the law.
b) upon his voluntary appearance/ surrender e.g.
or submission to the jurisdiction of the A person who was initially arrested but who
court. (Valdepenas v. People, 16 SCRA 871) escapes custody after his trial has
commenced.
Instances of voluntary submission to the
In what Instance is Custody of the Law required?
jurisdiction of the court:
1. Filing of a PLEADING seeking for affirmative Custody of the law is required before the court
relief like a motion to dismiss (Jimenez v. can act upon the application for bail, but is not
Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151); required for adjudication of other reliefs sought
2. Filing a MOTION to QUASH or other pleadings by the accused where the mere application
requiring the exercise of the court's constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of
jurisdiction (Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA jurisdiction over his person.
633);
3. Appearance for arraignment (Gimenez v.
What does custody of law signify?
Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4)
Custody of the law signifies restraint on the
4. The filing of a motion for determination of
person. Literally, it is custody over the body of
probable cause (David v. Agbay, G.R. No.
the accused. It includes detention. (Miranda vs.
199113, March 18, 2015)
Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377)
5. Active participation in the trial and
presentation of evidence (Peope v. Rivera, Before his arrest, A filed a motion for re-
597 SCRA 299) determination of probable cause. The trial court
denied the motion on the ground that it had no
Exceptions to voluntary submission: jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
• Not all acts seeking affirmative relief Is the court correct?
constitute voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. The exceptions are: NO. The court is wrong in saying that it had no
1) Making a special appearance to question the jurisdiction over the accused since the filing of
jurisdiction of the court; the motion signified his submission to its
2) Filing a motion to quash precisely assailing the jurisdiction. The court obviously confused custody
jurisdiction over his person of the law with jurisdiction over the person.
3) Filing a motion to quash warrant of arrest Custody of the law is not required for the
adjudication of reliefs EXCEPT in application
since it is the very legality of the court
for bail. (David v. Agbay, March 18, 2015)
process forcing submission of the person of
the accused that is the very issue. (Miranda v.
Can the court ENJOIN the CRIMINAL
Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377)
PROSECUTION of an accused?

Custody of the law vs. Jurisdiction over the General rule:


Person NO, injunction will not be granted to stop a
Notes: criminal prosecution SINCE public interest
1) One can be under the custody of the law but requires that criminal acts be immediately
not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court investigated and prosecuted for the
over his person. protection of the society. (Reyes v. Camilon, 192
e.g. 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 Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction of any court, or body except those (PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975 & RA
now falling under the exclusive and 8249)
concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.  NOTE:In Serana v. Sandiganbayan, 542
(Sec. 20,BP 129, as amended by RA 7691); SCRA 224, the SC held that the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is
2) Original jurisdiction in the issuance of set by P.D. 1606 as amended, and
NOT by R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft
 writs of certiorari, and Corrupt Practices Act, as
 prohibition, amended.
 RA 8249: An Act defining the jurisdiction institutions or foundations (People v. Morales,
of the Sandiganbayan, amending PD 649 SCRA 182)
1606, as amended...
(2) Members of congress and officials thereof
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise ORIGINAL classified as Grade “27” and up;
JURISDICTION in ALL cases involving: (Sec.
4, RA 8249,2-5-97) (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to
A. 1) Violations of RA 3019, as amended; 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 C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction in connection with EO Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A,
 Motion DENIED. Certiorari under Rule 65 to issued in 1986. Note: Civil jurisdiction is also
the SC. exercised by the Sandiganbayan (Antiporda v.
 Ruling: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction since Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551)
the information alleged with clarity that the
accused used his official position to commit Note: OTHER cases falling under jurisdiction
the acts charged. of the Sandiganbayan:

People v. Montejo, 108 Phil. 613. A. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
Accused city mayor was charged of murder. judgments, resolutions or orders of RTCs
The court ruled that the information sufficiently whether in the exercise of their original
indicated the existence of acts and events jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction;
intimately connected to the public office of the
accused. It alleged that the murder was a B. Exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
consequence of his act as a mayor; that he for issuance of the writs of mandamus,
organized armed patrols and civilian commandos prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
and provided them with arms; that he ordered injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
the arrest and maltreatment of the victim. While processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
office is not an element of murder, the offense and over petitions of similar nature, including
was committed while the accused was in the quo warranto, arising or that may arise in
performance of his functions. 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.
NOTE: In all the cited cases, it is required that
the information must contain the specific EO No. 1- Creating the PCGG, Feb. 1, 1986
FACTUAL allegations that would indicate the (recovery of ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos
close intimacy between the discharge of official Family,relatives,dummies,
functions by the accused and the commission of subordinates,agents, w/o distinction as to
the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime their private or public status & investigation
as having been committed in relation to public of graft cases as the President may assign)
office.
e.g. PCGG v. Dumayas, G.R. No. 209447,
Would a mere allegation that the offense was August 11, 2015.
committed “in relation to the discharge of
one's official functions” sufficient to comply The SC held that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
with the above requirement? suits involving the sequestered coco levy assets
and coco levy funds. It is within the jurisdiction of
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA the Sandiganbayan.
298.
NO. While the amended information for murder EO No. 2- Freeze order against all assets and
was alleged to have been committed “IN properties in the Philippines in which the
RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES AS Marcos family, their relatives, dummies,
POLICE OFFICERS”, it contained no specific subordinates, agents, etc., have any interest
allegations of facts that the shooting of the victim or participation.
was intimately related to the discharge of the
official functions of the accused. EO Nos. 14 & 14-A-vesting in the
**The mere allegation that the offense was Sandiganbayn original and exclusive
committedxxx in relation to his office is not JURISDICTION over criminal & civil suits filed
sufficient. The phrase is merely a conclusion of by the PCGG/Granting the PCGG authority to
law, not a factual averment that would show grant immunity from criminal prosecution.
close intimacy between the offense charged and
the discharge of accused's duties. 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 In what offenses is PI required/not
required?
Who are the parties in a criminal action? Preliminary investigation is required for
The parties are the People of the Philippines offenses where the penalty is at least 4 years, 2
and the accused. The offended party is months and 1 day(Sec. 1, Rule 112)
regarded merely as a witness for the state

Why is the offended party regarded as a Is it correct to say that ALL offenses under the
mere witness? jurisdiction of the MTC do not require Preliminary
The purpose of criminal action is to determine Investigation? Why?
the penal liability of the accused for having NO. Take note of the following:
outraged the state with his crime. (Heirs of Sarah RTC jurisdiction: over offenses punishable
Marie Palma Burgos v. CA, 169711, February 8, by imprisonment of more than 6 years, way
2010) above the minimum penalty for offenses that
require PI.
How are criminal actions instituted? MTC jurisdiction: over offenses punishable
It generally depends on whether or not the by not more than 6 years. (Sec. 32(2), BP
offense is one which requires preliminary 129, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).
investigation (Sec. 1, Rule 110) P.I. is required in offenses punishable by
4 years, 2 months and 1 day, which is
1) Where PI is required- instituted by filing the well within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
complaint with the proper officer for the
requisite PI. What is the effect of the filing of the
2) Where PI is NOT required- instituted in either criminal action on the Prescriptive
2 ways: Period?
a) by filing directly with the MTC and MCTC;
or *Sec. 1 categorically says that it shall interrupt
b) by filing with the prosecutor's office the period of prescription of the offense charged
(Sec. 1, Rule 110) UNLESS otherwise provided in special laws.

How about in Manila & other chartered NOTE: Since Rule 110 provides that one of the
cities? ways of instituting the criminal action is by filing
Special rule: by filing with the prosecutor's with the proper officer for the conduct of PI for
office unless otherwise provided in the charter offenses that require it, such filing with the
(Sec. 1, Rule 110) proper officer for the requisite PI shall interrupt
the prescriptive period.
Is there direct filing with the RTC? Why?
NONE because its jurisdiction covers offenses NOTES:
which require Preliminary Investigation. *For offenses where PI is not required, the filing
with the MTC or with the prosecutor's office shall
Is there direct filing in Manila/other interrupt the period.
chartered cities? *In Manila and other chartered cities, the filing
with the prosecutor interrupts the period.
NONE because as a rule, the complaint shall be
filed with the prosecutor's office. Until when is the prescriptive period
suspended?
Exception: Until such time that the accused is either
If the charter provides otherwise. (Sec. 1, Rule CONVICTED or ACQUITTED by the proper
110) court. (People v. Bautista, GR No. 168641, April
27, 2007)
violations of the law not included in the Penal
Rule on PRESCRIPTION for violations of Code.
Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances:
ACT 3326, as amended, governs the period for Notable cases re Act 3326:
prescription for violations of special laws and 1) Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277, a case
municipal ordinances. involving an offense punishable by a municipal
ordinance.
Section 1.  It held that Act 3326 says that the period of
Violations penalized by SPECIAL ACTS shall, prescription shall be suspended when
unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe proceedings are instituted against the guilty
in accordance with the following rules: person, the proceedings being “judicial
(a) after a year for offenses punished only by a proceedings and not administrative.”
fine or by imprisonment for not more than
one month, or both; Recent cases seemingly abandoned the Zaldivia
(b) after four years for those punished by ruling:
imprisonment for more than one month, but 1) Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim, GR No.
less than two years; 168662, February 19, 2008
(c) after eight years for those punished by -Violation of Intellectual property Code.
imprisonment for two years or more, but A complaint was filed with the Task force on
less than six years; and Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) of the
(d) after twelve years for any other offense DOJ.
punished by imprisonment for six years or The complaint was dismissed by TAPP for
more, except the crime of treason, which insufficiency of evidence. It was appealed up
shall prescribe after twenty years. to the CA which affirmed the dismissal on the
(e) Violations penalized by municipal ground of prescription since no complaint was
ordinances shall prescribe after two filed in court pursuant to Act 3326.
months.
Ruling:
Prescriptive period More than Less than The prescriptive period for violation of special
After 1 year Not more than 1 month
laws starts on the day such offense was
After 4 years 1 month 2 years
After 8 years 2 yrs or more 6 years committed and IS INTERRUPTED BY THE
After 12 years 6 years or more, except treason INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
(after 20 years)
RESPONDENT. The prescriptive period for the
2 months Violations penalized by Municipal
Ordinances prosecution of violation of the IPC was tolled by
the petitioner's timely filing of the complaint
Sec. 2.  before the TAPP.
Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if 2) Panaguiton Jr v. DOJ, GR. No.- 167571, 11-
the same be not known at the time, from the 25-08-Violation of BP 22.
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial QC Prosecutor dismissed the complaint on the
proceeding for its investigation and punishment. ground of prescription (4 years). The DOJ
affirmed the dismissal. The CA dismissed
The prescription shall be interrupted when certiorari petition on technical grounds.
proceedings are instituted against the guilty Before the SC, the respondent invoked the
person, and shall begin to run again if the Zaldivia ruling to support the dismissal of the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons NOT complaint.
constituting jeopardy. 
Ruling:
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, SPECIAL The filing of the complaint with the prosecutor
ACTS shall be acts defining and penalizing signified the commencement of the
proceedings for the prosecution of the
accused and thus, EFFECTIVELY How about filing of a case with the
INTERRUPTED THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD. Ombudsman?
The court explained that when Act 3326 was This also effectively interrupts the prescriptive
passed, PI could be conducted by justices of period.
the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law, In Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
“INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 169823-24, 9-11-13, it was held that:
FOR ITS INVESTIGATION AND PUNISHMENT “The prevailing rule is, therefore, that
xxx”. irrespective of whether the offense charged is
3) SEC v. Interport Resources Corp., GR No. punishable by the RPC or by a special law, it
135808, 10-6-08-Violation of Revised is the filing of the complaint or information in
Securities Act. the office of the public prosecutor for
Ruling: purposes of preliminary investigation that
o It is established doctrine that a preliminary interrupts the period of prescription”.
investigation interrupts the prescriptive
period. The investigation commenced by SEC,
pursuant to its powers under the securities How about crimes required to be referred to
Act, effectively interrupted the prescriptive the barangay?
period.
NOTE: Sec. 410, RA 7160, Local Government Code of
1991, provides the Procedure for Amicable
Sanrio, Panaguiton and SEC cases cited above Settlement. Under par. (c) on suspension of
uniformly held that the filing of the affidavit prescriptive period of offenses, the prescriptive
complaint for PI interrupted the running of period is suspended temporarily once the
the prescriptive period for violations of complaint is filed with the Punong
special laws. Barangay, but such suspension shall last for
60 days only from the filing of the
People v. Pangilinan, 672 SCRA 105, June complaint.
13, 2012. The prescriptive period shall RESUME upon
In this more recent case where the issue of receipt by the complainant of the certificate of
whether or not the filing of the criminal action for repudiation or certificate to file action.
violation of BP 22 has already prescribed, the
court held:
Does the rule on interruption of prescription
“There is no more distinction between cases still apply if the court is without
under the RPC and those under special laws with jurisdiction?
respect to the interruption of the period of
prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. is YES. The running of the period of prescription is
not controlling in special laws. In Llenes v. interrupted with the filing of the action even if
Dicdican, Ingco,et.al., v. Sandiganbayan, the court in which the action was first filed is
Brillante v. CA, and Sanrio Company Ltd. v. Lim, without jurisdiction.
cases involving special laws, this court held that Notable cases:
the institution of proceedings for preliminary
investigation against the accused interrupts the 1) In People v. Galano, an information was filed
period of prescription. with the Batangas RTC even though the
evidence of both parties shows that the crime
In SEC v. Interport Resources Corp, et.al., the was committed in Manila.
court even ruled that investigations conducted by Ruling:
the SEC for violations of the Revised Security Act Applying People v. Olarte, the court held that it
and the Securities Regulation Code effectively was only when the trial court dismissed the case
interrupts the prescriptive period because it is due to lack of jurisdiction that “the proceedings
equivalent to the preliminary investigation therein terminated without conviction and
conducted by the DOC in criminal cases.
acquittal and it was only then that the 1) WAIVES the civil action;
prescriptive period (which was interrupted during 2) RESERVES the right to file the civil action;
the pendency of the case in the Batangay RTC) and
commenced to run again.” 3) institutes the civil action PRIOR to the
criminal action.
2) In People v. Enrile, where informations were
filed against civilians with the military tribunal What is the effect of an independent civil
which had no jurisdiction over them, the court, action on the right of the offended party to
applying the Olarte case, threw out the defense intervene through a private prosecutor?
of prescription when the cases were filed before
the civil courts. At the very least, the filing of the The filing of an independent civil action does not
first charges interrupted the prescriptive period deprive the offended party the right to intervene
notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the through a private prosecutor.
military tribunal. NOTE that under Sec. 1, Rule 111, what is
deemed instituted with the criminal action is the
3) Reodica v. CA, an information for reckless civil action to recover civil liability arising from
imprudence resulting in damage to property was the offense charged.
filed with the RTC.
Take Note: Those not arising from the
Ruling: The court, citing Olarte and other offense charged like independent civil actions
subsequent cases, ruled that “the prescriptive under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
period for the quasi-offenses in question was are not deemed instituted with the criminal
interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the action.
fiscal's office 3 days after the accident and These independent civil actions, according to Sec.
remained tolled pending termination of the case.” 3, Rule 111, shall proceed independently of the
NOTE: All the above cases were cited in criminal action. No need for reservation under
Arambulo v. Laqui, Sr., 342 SCRA 740) the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure because
they can proceed separately from the criminal
action.
II. PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION
WHO must prosecute the criminal action? THUS, as a consequence of the independent
All criminal actions shall be prosecuted under character of actions brought under
the direct supervision and control of the a) Arts. 32(civil & political rights),
public prosecutor. b) 33 (defamation/fraud/physical injuries),
Even if there is a private prosecutor, the c) 34 (failure to render aid by peace officer)
criminal action is still under the direction and
and control of the public prosecutor. d) 2176(quasi-delict caused by
fault/negligence) of the Civil Code,
Can a private prosecutor appear? even if a civil action based on these is filed, the
YES. The appearance of a private prosecutor ex-delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution
is allowed ONLY when the civil action for the remains. Hence, the offended party may still
recovery of civil liability is filed with the intervene through a private prosecutor.
criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 (Sec. 16,
Rule 110). WHO must prosecute criminal actions in the
The engagement or appointment of a private MTC or MCTC?
prosecutor is done by the offended party and The public prosecutor MUST prosecute criminal
it is the mode by which he intervenes in the actions in the MTC.
prosecution of the offense.
Is there any exemption to this rule?
When is a private prosecutor NOT allowed? EXCEPTION:
When the offended party:
When the Public Prosecutor is NOT available, the offended party, peace officer or public
following may be allowed to prosecute:(Sec. 5, officer to prosecute the criminal case in the
Rule 110, as amended by AM 02-2-7-SC & aforementioned courts is still in effect and
clarified in OCA Circular No. 39, August 21, not withdrawn.
2002)
a. Private prosecutor It is therefore necessary to state in toto the first
b. offended (1st) paragraph of Section 5, Rule 110, as
c. peace officer amended by the Supreme Court Resolution dated
d. public officer charged with the enforcement 10 April 2002 in A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC as follows:
of the law violated.
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.
A.M. No. 02-2-7-SC, May 1, 2002, amending — All criminal actions either commenced by
Sec. 5, Rule 110) complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - under the direction and control of a public
All criminal actions either commenced by prosecutor.In case of heavy work schedule of the
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted public prosecutor, or in the event of lack of public
under the direction and control of a public prosecutors,
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of
the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of the private prosecutor may be authorized in
public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or
authorized in writing by the Chief of the the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State case subject to the approval of the court. Once so
Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the
approval of the court. private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the
case up to the end of the trial even in the
Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal absence of a public prosecutor, unless the
action, the private prosecutor shall continue to authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in
the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal
authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. " Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor
assigned thereto or to the case is not
OCA CIRCULAR 39-2002, AUGUST 21, 2002 available, the offended party, any peace officer,
The Supreme Court En Banc in its Resolution or public officer charged with the enforcement of
dated 10 April 2002, in A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, RE: the law violated may prosecute the case. This
Proposed Amendments to Section 5, Rule 110 of authority shall cease upon actual intervention of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to
Resolved to approve the amendment to Sec. 5, the Regional Trial Court.
Rule 110 to read as follows:
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. How are offenses in violation of special laws
— (as quoted above) prosecuted?
They shall be prosecuted pursuant to the
Take Note: provisions of said (special) law (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
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
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 What is the effect of infirmity in the
of lasciviousness: signature in the information?
ONLY upon the complaint of the offended party. An infirmity, such as lack of authority of the
officer signing it cannot be cured by silence,
acquiescence, or even by express consent.
IV. THE COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION
Sufficiency of the complaint/information
It is deemed sufficient if it contains the
What is a COMPLAINT?
followings:
It is a sworn written statement charging a
person with an offense, subscribed by the
a. name of the accused;
offended party, any peace officer, or other public
b. designation of the offense given by statute;
officer charged with the enforcement of law
c. acts or omissions complained of as
violated. (Sec. 3, Rule 110)
constituting the offense;
d. name of the offended party;
COMPLAINT:
e. approximate date of commission; and
f. place of commission (Sec. 6, Rule 110; What determines the NATURE and
Enrile v. Manalastas, 739 SCRA 49) CHARACTER of the offense charged?
**It is determined not from the caption or
What is the test for sufficiency of the preamble of the information, or from the
complaint or information? specification of the provision of law violated,
The test is whether the crime is described in which are mere conclusions of law, but by the
intelligible terms with such particularity as recitals of the ultimate facts and circumstances in
to apprise the accused with reasonable the information (People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA
certainty, of the offense charged to enable 272).
him to suitably prepare for his defense
(Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 581 SCRA **Even if the designation of the crime is
431). defective, what is controlling is the allegation of
the facts in the information that comprises a
NOTE: crime and adequately describes the nature and
1) Whether an information charges an offense cause of the accusation(People v. Anguac, 588
depends on whether the material facts SCRA 716).
alleged shall establish the essential
elements of the offense charged. Thus, for Date of commission of the offense
an information to be sufficient, it must validly Is it necessary to state the precise date of
charge an offense. (Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, commission?
675 SCRA 560) NO. Sec. 11, Rule 110 provides that it is not
2) An Information is fatally defective when it is necessary EXCEPT when the date of commission
clear that it does not charge an offense or is a material element of the offense. Thus, the
when an essential element of the crime has offense may be alleged to have been committed
not been sufficiently alleged (People v. on a date as near as possible to the actual date
Posada, 667 SCRA 790). of commission (People v. Canares, 579 SCRA
588).
When can one raise any question as to the
sufficiency of the complaint or information? In crimes where the date of commission is not
Upon arraignment or during trial. Failure to do a material element, like murder, rape, or
so is deemed a waiver, such as when accused qualified theft, it is not necessary to allege such
voluntarily entered a plea and participated in the date with absolute certainty in the information.
trial. (Frias v. People, G.R. No. 171437, 10-4- The Rules of Court merely requires, for the sake
07). of properly informing an accused, that the date
of commission be approximated (People v.
How about as to form? Teodoro, 607 SCRA 307; People v. Zapanta, 694
Objections as to form, such as when the SCRA 25; People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572,July
information does not conform to prescribed form, 9,2014). In these cases, the terms used were:
must likewise be made before arraignment and “in the first week of July 1995”; “sometime
cannot be made for the first time on appeal in the month of October 2001”; “on or about
(People v. Teodoro,607 SCRA 307; People v. the 27th day of November 2000”.
runcas, 664 SCRA 182).
People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, 01-15-14
NOTE: The phrase “on or about the year 1992” was held
However, where the OBJECTION is based on to encompass not only the twelve months of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, 1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent
the same may be raised or considered motu to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for which accused
proprio by the court at any stage of the has to virtually account for his whereabouts.
proceedings or on appeal (Fuluzume v. People, Hence, the failure of the prosecution to allege
474 SCRA 570) 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 How to state his name?
intelligently prepare for his defense. 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;
How to state Name of the accused: c) If true name is later known, cause it to be
Section 7, Rule 110 gives the rules: inserted. (Sec. 12, Rule 110)
a) state the name and surname of the accused,
or any appellation or nickname by which he
has been or is known; How to state a Juridical person as offended
b) if first name cannot be ascertained, describe party:
him under a fictitious name, BUT such It is sufficient to state its name, or any name or
description must be accompanied by a designation by which it is known or by which it
statement that his true name is unknown; may be identified, WITHOUT need of averring
c) Once his name is diclosed by him or that it is a juridical person or that it is organized
becomes known, his true name shall be in accordance with law (Sec. 12(c), Rule 110)
inserted in the information and in the records
of the case. Rule if name of offended party is unknown
in crimes against property:
NOTES: In offenses against property, if the name of the
1) Positive identification pertains offended party is not known, the PROPERTY
essentially to the proof of identity. A mistake MUST be described with such particularity as to
in the name is not equivalent to mistake in properly identify the offense charged (Sec. 12(a),
the identity of the accused especially when Rule 110)
sufficient evidence is adduced to show that NOTE: If the subject matter of the offense is
the accused is pointed to as one of the generic and not identifiable, such as xxx
perpetrators (People v. Amodia, 584 SCRA money unlawfully takenxxx, an error in the
518); designation of the offended party is FATAL
and would result to the acquittal of the accused.
2) What matters in convicting an accused is
his identification as the person who However, if the subject matter of the offense is
committed the crime, not the name under specific and identifiable, such as a jewelry with a
which he was arrested or charged(People v. specific designation, an error in the
Bonito, 342 SCRA 405) designation of the offended party is immaterial
and is not violative of the constitutional right of
3) The identity of the accused must, the accused to be informed of the nature and
however, be proven. Where in identifying the cause of accusation against her (Seandor v.
accused who allegedly raped her, the victim People, 692 SCRA 669)
showed reluctance in identifying the accused
then eventually pointed to the accused that How to state Designation of the offense:
“it might be him,” the identification is Sec. 8, Rule 110 gives the rules:
uncertain (People v. Tumambing, 644 SCRA d) the name given to the offense by statute shall
482) be stated in the information or complaint.
If the statute gives no designation, then
How to state Name of the offended party: reference shall be made to the section or
subsection punishing it;
Who is the offended party? e) Include in the complete designation of the
The person against whom or whose property the offense an averment of the acts or omissions
offense was committed. (Sec. 12, Rule 110) constituting the offense;
f) the information shall specify the qualifying b) the acts or omissions complained of as
and aggravating circumstances. constituting the offense; and
c) the qualifying and aggravating
What is the EFFECT of failure to designate circumstances.
the offense given by statute or to mention
the provision violated? What is the rule on DUPLICITY OF OFFENSE
**It does not vitiate the information if the as charged in the information?
facts alleged clearly recite the facts constituting
the crime charged. What determines the crime General Rule:
charged in the information is the recital of facts the complaint or information must charge only
of the commission of the offense, not the one offense. EXCEPT that more than one offense
nomenclature of the offense.(Malto v. People, may be charged when the law prescribes a
533 SCRA 642) single punishment for various offenses. (Sec.
**There is no rule which requires that the 13, Rule 110)
information must state the particular law under
which the accused is charged in order for it to be NOTE: Objections on the ground of duplicity
sufficient and valid (Licyayo v. People, 547 SCRA must be raised before trial, otherwise it is
598). deemed waived. (Sec. 3, Rule 120)

NOTE: Purpose of the rule:


All qualifying or aggravating circumstances The purpose of the rule prohibiting
must be alleged IN THE INFORMATION. duplicitous complaints is:
If NOT, the court cannot take them into to give the accused the necessary
consideration in the imposition of the penalty knowledge of the charge against him
even if proven during the trial. (Sec. 8,9, Rule and
110; People v. Tampus, G.R. No. 181084, June enable him to sufficiently prepare for
16, 2009) his defense. (People v. CA, G.R. no.
183652, 02-25-15)
How to state Cause of the accusation:
The information must allege clearly and Exception to the rule:
accurately the elements of the crime (1) when the law prescribes a single penalty
charged. What facts and circumstances are for various offenses as in COMPLEX and
necessary to be included therein must be COMPOUND CRIMES under Art. 48, RPC;
e.g.
determined by reference to the definition and
a) When a single bullet killed 2 persons, there is
elements of the specific crimes.
complex crime since there was only a single
The purpose is to inform an accused of the
act which produced 2 crimes (People v.
nature of the accusation against him to
Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32)
suitably prepare for his defense. Another
b) A single act of throwing a grenade resulting
purpose is to enable him, if found guilty, to
to the killing of one and injuring others, a
plead his conviction in a subsequent
single information under Art. 48 may
prosecution for the same offense (Serapio v.
be charged (People v. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307)
Sandiganbayan,396 SCRA 443)
c) When a single shot killed one and seriously
injured another, is a complex crime
Sec. 9, Rule 110 provides the rules:
chargeable under one information (People v.
It is sufficient for the information to use
Madali, 188 SCRA 69);
ordinary and concise language to enable a
d) Malversation of public funds through
person of common understanding to know the
falsification of public documents may be
following:
contained under a single information under
Art. 48. The falsification was done to
a) the offense being charged;
misappropriate the funds (People v. Sivallana,
61 Phil. 636)
e) Falsification of a cedula to commit the persons who were killed were NOT caused by
malversation is a complex crime (People v. the performance by the accused of one simple
Barbas, 60 Phil. 241) act. death caused is a distinct and separate shot
fired by the accused. Although the burst of shots
(2) in SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES where a was caused by one single act of pressing the
single penalty is also imposed. trigger of the automatic weapon, the person
firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger with
Ex. a) Art. 266-B, RPC=Rape with his finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it
homicide is not the single act of pressing the trigger which
b) Art. 267,RPC=Kidnapping with homicide/rape produced the several felonies, but the number of
c) Art. 294=Robbery with homicide bullets which were discharged.

(3) In CONTINUED or CONTINUOUS CRIMES 2) People v. Lucena, G.R. No. 190632,


as when the offense is a series of acts committed February 26, 2014.
on the same period and impelled by a single **The appellant should be convicted of 3
intent or resolution (delito continuado) counts of rape because he succeeded in inserting
his penis into the private part of the victim.The 3
Ex: Santiago v. Garchitorena, 288 SCRA 214, consecutive penetrations occurred one after the
where the act of approving the application for other at an interval of 5 minutes. Hence, it can
legalization of the stay of 32 aliens despite their be clearly be inferred that when he decided to
allegedly being disqualified is but a single offense commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual
to be charged under one information only. assault, he was not motivated by a single
impulse, but rather by several criminal intents.
The Santiago case further explained:
Applying the concept of delito continuado, we The Aaron case invoked by the accused
treated as constituting only one offense the cannot apply. In the said case, the accused
following cases: inserted his penis into the victim's vagina thrice
1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to 2 different after directing the latter twice to change position
owners committed by the accused at the each time he inserted his penis. The court viewed
same time and at the same period of time the 3 penetrations as having occurred during one
(People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320); continuing act of rape motivated by a single
2) The theft of 6 roosters belonging to 2 criminal intent.
different owners from the same coop and at
the same eriod of time (People v. Jaranillo, 55 V. VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
SCRA 563); NOTES:
3) The theft 2 roosters in the same place and on Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional and a
the same occasion (People v. De Leon, 49 court is without jurisdiction to try an offense
Phil. 437); committed outside its limited jurisdiction.
4) The collection of legal fees by a lawyer
everytime he collects veteran's benefits on Thus, it has been ruled that the place where the
behalf of a client, who agreed that the legal crime was committed determines not only the
fees shall be paid out of said benefits (People VENUE of the action but is an essential element
v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156); of JURISDICTION. (Trenas v People, 664 SCRA
355)
NOTE HOWEVER:
1) People v. Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32, citing The rule states that the criminal action shall be
People v. Desierto, C.A. 45 O.G. 4542) instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory:
a) where the offense was committed, or
When several people are killed by separate
b) where any of its elements occurred.
bullets from a single automatic weapon, Art. 48
is not applicable because the death of each of
(Sec. 15(a), Rule 110, Union Bank of the the offense is cognizable in Philippine courts
Philippines v. People, 667 SCRA 113) even if committed outside the territory. The
offense shall be cognizable by the court
VENUE: Element of criminal jurisdiction where the action is first filed. (Sec. 15(d),
To reiterate, venue in criminal actions is Rule 110);
jurisdictional. Hence, the court cannot exercise 2) Where the SC orders change of venue or
jurisdiction over a person charged with an place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice
offense committed outside its limited territory. (Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution);
This is because venue is an element of 3) Offense committed in a train, aircraft, or
jurisdiction. other public or private vehicle in the course of
its trip, the action need not be filed in the
Thus, Sec. 6, Rule 110 requires that the actual place of commission. It may be filed
complaint, to be deemed sufficient, should state and tried in the court of any municipality or
the place where the offense was committed. territory where said train, aircraft, or vehicle
passed during its trip. It may also be filed
In Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, and tried in the place of departure and
667 SCRA 113, the court elucidated on the rule arrival (Sec. 15(b), Rule 110)
by saying that “Venue is an essential element of 4) offense committed on board a vessel in the
jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not course of its voyage. It can be filed in the
only the place where the action is to be filed, but place of commission, in the court of first
also the court which has jurisdiction to try and port of entry, or in the court of the place
hear the case. The reason is two-fold: where the vessel passed during the
voyage. (Sec. 15(c), Rule 110)
1st: the jurisdiction is limited to well-defined
Take Note: In crimes committed on board a
territories such that a court can only hear and try
vessel, departure and arrival are not included
cases involving crimes committed within its
as venue.
territorial jurisdiction.
5) Where the offense is cognizable by the
2nd: laying the venue in the locus criminis is Sandiganbayan, the action need not be filed
grounded on the necessity and justice of having and tried in the place of commission but
an accused on trial in the place where the generally, where the court actually sits in
witnesses and other facilities for his defense are Quezon City.
available.
NOTE: Under Sec. 2 of RA 8249, An Act Further
Finally, the court said, a finding of IMPROPER Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
VENUE in criminal cases carries jurisdictional when the greater convenience of the
consequences. accused and of the witnesses, or other
compelling considerations so require, a case
What is the consequence? originating from one geographical region may be
heard in another region. For this purpose, the
Improper venue in criminal cases means presiding justice shall authorize any divisions of
lack of jurisdiciton. Thus, it is ground to the court to hold sessions at any time and place
dismiss or quash under Sec. 3, Rule 117, the outside Metro Manila and, where the interest
ground being “the court trying the case has no of justice so requires, outside the territorial
jurisdiction over the offense charged. boundaries of the Philippines.

EXCEPTIONS: to the rule that the offense 6) In Written defamation, the criminal action
must be filed and tried in the place of may be filed:
commission: (a) RTC of the province where the libelous
1) Where the offense was committed under article was printed and first published
circumstances enumerated in Art. 2, RPC,
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).

You might also like