DEI JOMAR G.

BALINDOA

CRATUS

1.

A. No, Mario’s contention is incorrect.

RA 9262 is a continuing crime, though the crime was committed in Abu Dhabi, the psychological
abuse occurs in the Philippines where Charisse resides. Thus, in the case of AAA v BBB (GR. No.
212448, January 11, 2018) the court stated that a person charged with a continuing or transitory
crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
Therefore, both courts may exercise jurisdiction over crime committed.
B. No, the case should not be dismissed.
Transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and
requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the court of either
province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance
of the case will exclude the others.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss the case should not be granted.

2.

A. The MTC shall take cognizance of the case.

BP. 129, Sec. 32(2) states that Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof:
Thus, Tony charged with robbery with prescribed penalty of prision correccional fall within the
jurisdiction of MTC.

3.

A. The case should be filed in the Sandigan Bayan.

PD 1606 Se.2 (c) states that, Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over: (c) Other crimes or
offenses committed by public officers or employees, including those employed in government-
owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office. It is clear in the information that were
it not for his official position as governor he may have not succeeded in murdering his lover.
Thus, it is clear that in cases where a crime is committed by a public official in relation to his office
or function the Sandiganbayan shall have the jurisdiction.
 B. Rule 122 Section 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, states that the appeal may be taken as follows: (b) To
the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided
by the Regional Trial Court.

4.

A. No, Charlie is incorrect.

In the case of Yu Oh v. CA (GR. No.125297), it was held that jurisdiction is determined by the law
in force at the time of the filing of the complaint, and once acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by
subsequent legislative enactments placing jurisdiction in another tribunal.
Thus, the motion to dismiss the case should not be granted.

5.

A. No, the case cannot be dismissed.

Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months. The information
was filed on March 1, 2021 therefore the violation did not prescribe.
B. Yes, the case will still prosper.
Sec. 2 of Act. 3226 states that 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.
Thus the case at bar is did not prescribe