1A
1. ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION
The Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction refers to the principle that once a
court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has
done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This principle also
means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events, although of a character that would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. Once jurisdiction has been
acquired, the court retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
2. Yes, I agree with the RTC judge in his orders to continue the prosecution
of the case against Vhong.
Pursuant to the Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction, if a court has already
obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to
proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new
legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal.
In the case at bar, the jurisdiction is in the RTC of Taguig. Even with the order
of the dismissal of DOJ of the complaint against Vhong upon the petition filed
by his counsel in the said department, the jurisdiction still remains in the RTC
of Taguig and only the said court has the authority to dismiss or proceed with
the prosecution.
Therefore, the RTC, as the court with jurisdiction of the case, is right in its
order to continue the prosecution.
3. No, the RTC is not correct in dismissing the case against X.
In accordance with Sec. 11, Rule 110 of RRC, it is not necessary to state in
the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed
except when it is not a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be
alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual
date of its commission. This complements Sec. 6, Rule 110 of RRC which
states that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the
accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained as of constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
the place where the offense was committed.
Therefore, the RTC made a mistake in dismissing the case against X.
4. For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense
should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Venue is simply an
essential element of jurisdiction. Hence, venue is jurisdictional.
1C
1. Jurisdiction vs. Venue
For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should
have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Venue is simply an essential element of
jurisdiction. Hence, venue is jurisdictional.
2. Yes, I agree with the stand of the PNP of Tacloban City.
Except for cases of warrantless arrest, a preliminary investigation is required
to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information in court for an
offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two
months and one day without regard to the fine.
In the case at bar, the PNP of Tacloban City filed a complaint for slight
physical injuries against X at the MTCC of Tacloban City. The imposable
penalty for slight physical injuries is only arresto menor, that is, an
imprisonment of one day to 30 days. The degree of imposable penalty for
slight physical injuries makes it an exception for conducting a preliminary
investigation.
Therefore, the MTCC should institute the criminal proceedings even when
the complaint for slight physical injuries against X is filed without a
preliminary investigation.
3. Yes, a court may impose a civil liability in a judgment of acquittal.
An acquittal is in order where the prosecution fails to prove the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. However, an acquittal does not necessarily extinguish the
civil liability arising from the criminal charges unless there is a finding in a
final judgment in the criminal action that the crime from which the civil liability
may arise did not exist.
4. Yes, I will grant Robin’s motion for his immediate release.
Indeed, laws shall have prospective effect unless the contrary is expressly
provided. However, pursuant to Art. 22 of the RPC, penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused, who is not a habitual
criminal, although at the time of publication of such laws a final sentence has
been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
For the case of Robin, the new law that congress passed which reduces the
penalty of homicide to only a maximum of ten years of imprisonment, shall be
applied with a retroactive effect.
Therefore, Robin shall be released as he has already served ten years of his
sentence at the time of the passage of the new law.