PART II - JURISDICTION

A, JURISDICTION v CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and
decide a case

Criminal jurisdiction – authority of the court to hear and try a particular offense
and to impose the punishment provided by law.

B.POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEFINE, PRESCRIBE AND APPORTION JURISDICTION OF COURTS; LIMITATIONS

(Art VIII, sec 2, 1987 Constitution)

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the

security of tenure of its Members.

C. KINDS OF JURISDICTION

There are 4 kinds of jurisdiction:

1. As to cases tried:

a,General (all cases) – are those with competence to decide on their

own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal of a
particular nature.

b. Limited/special (specific cases)- those which have only a special

jurisdiction for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the
performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any
kind.

2. As to nature of cause:

a. Original (where the case began)- means the power of a court to hear
a case for the first time; the action or proceeding is originally filed with it.
b. Appellate (when brought to a higher court for review; higher courts
won't entertain problems unless the lower courts can't solve them first -but
there are
exceptions, like habeas corpus.) – one with power of review over decisions
or orders of lower/subordinate courts and may correct the orders of lower
courts if it deems necessary.

3. As to extent of exercise:

a Exclusive (limited to a particular court) – where one court has the

power to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other courts

a. Concurrent (or nonexclusive jurisdiction) – when more than 1 court

may take jurisdiction over the case; when different courts can try the same
subject matter at the same time and place; the court whose jurisdiction was
first called on takes over the case and the other courts won't touch it.

4. As to situs:

a. Territorial (limited to the area) – authority to hear cases involving

crimes committed ( or any of its essential ingredients was committed) within
the courts defined boundary.
b. Extra-territorial (extends beyond the territorial limits.)- like thorse provided
under Art. 2 of the RPC.

D. CASES COVERED BY THE RULES ON BARANGAY CONCILIATION

GENERAL RULE: All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to

the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law [formerly P. D. 1508, repealed
and now replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515,
Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of
1991], and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint
in court or any government offices,

The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the
parties actually residing in the same municipality or city for amicable
settlement of all disputes .

EXCEPTIONS:

(a) Where one party is the government or any subdivision

or instrumentality thereof
 (b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the
dispute relates to the performance of his official functions

(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or

a fine exceeding P5,000

(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party

(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different

cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon

(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of

different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin
each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon

(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine
in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice

(h) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or

juridical entities. The reason is that only individuals shall be parties to
barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents

(i) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent

injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically:

A criminal case where the accused is under police custody or detention

A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of his

liberty or one acting in his behalf

Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction,

attachment, replevin and support pendente lite

Where the action may be barred by statute of limitations

(j) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-

employee relationship
 (k) Where the dispute arises from the CARL

(l) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which can

be directly filed in court.

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO REFER TO BARANGAY

Under SC ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93 - A case filed in court

without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a pre-condition
for formal adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law) may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack
of jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of action or
prematurity (Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA
289), or the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party under
Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court; and refer the case motu proprio to the
appropriate Barangay authority applying by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd par.,
of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law which reads as follows:

E. JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS

1. METROPLOITAN, MUNICIPAL, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
1. All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial jurisdictions;
2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than
6 years irrespective of the amount of fine
3. All cases of damage to property through criminal negligence
1. regardless of other penalties ( imposable fine) and the
civil liabilities arising therefrom
2. All offenses committed by public officers and employees
in relation to their office, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations where
------
---or any private person collaborating with him.
4. if the penalty is only a fine that is Php4,000.00 or less
5. In election offenses, cases involving failure to register or failure
to vote
6. Special jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioners for a writ
of habeas corpus or application for bail in the province or
city where the RTC judge is absent
 7. Cases involving BP 22—Bouncing Checks Law

WHAT ARE THE CRIMINAL CASES FALLING UNDER THE RULES OF SUMMARY
PROCEDURE?

1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations

2. Violations of the rental law
3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances
4. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or
a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom:
Provided, however, that in offenses involving
damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern
where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).

2. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
1. All criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body
2. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
1. All cases decided by lower courts in their respective
territorial jurisdictions
3. COURT OF APPEALS ( R-124)
1. ORIGINAL
1. EXCLUSIVE
1. Actions for annulment of judgments of the Regional
Trial Court
2. CONCURRENT
1. With the Supreme Court:
1. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the Regional Trial Court
2. With the Supreme Court & Regional Trial Court:
1. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the Regional Trial Court
 2. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
1. BY APPEAL
From the RTC in cases commenced therein, except
those appealable to the Supreme Court or the
Sandiganbayan
2. BY PETITION FOR REVIEW
From the Regional Trial Court in cases appealed thereto from the
lower courts and not appealable to the Sandiganbayan

5. SUPREME COURT ( R-125)

3. ORIGINAL
1. EXCLUSIVE
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

against the Court of Appeals & the Sandiganbayan

2. CONCURRENT
1. With the Court of Appeals:
1. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

against the Regional Trial Court

2. With the Court of Appeals & the Regional Trial Court
1. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

against the lower courts

3. With the Sandiganbayan:
1. petitions for mandamus, prohibition certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

2. petitions for quo warranto arising from Executive

Order #s 1, 2, 14 & 14 – A
3. BY PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
1. From the Court of Appeals;
2. From the Sandiganbayan; and
3. From the Regional Trial Court where only an error
or question of law is involved

6. SANDIGANBAYAN - see separate notes

D. REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
3. Jurisdiction over the territory

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

1. CONCEPT: Refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine

a particular criminal case. It imports the power and authority to hear
and determine issues of facts and law and pronounce the
judgment/impose punishment.

2. HOW CONFERRED:

- It is conferred by law or by the sovereign authority which organized

the court and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed
by law.
- it must be clear; cannot presumed toe exist
a. It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired
or diminished by any act of the parties. ( Tolentino vs SSS, 138 S 428);
b. It cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by
express waiver or otherwise ( Fuzukume vs PP, 474 SCRA 570)
c. It is not conferred by administrative policy of any trial court ( Cudia
vs CA, 284 SCRA 173)
d. It is not conferred by the rules but by law. ( Padunan vs DARAB,
GR 132163, 1-28-03)

3. HOW JURIS OVER THE SM DETERMINED:

HOW TO DETERMINE: it is determined by the allegations of the complaint or

info ( whether the facts set out and the punishment provided by law for such
act fall w/n the juris of the court), and once it is so shown, the court may
validly take cognizance of the case

a) jurisdiction to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force

at the time of the institution of the action and not during the
arraignment or at the time of its commission.
 4. ERROR OF JURISDICTION v ERROR OF JUDGMENT

An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction. For as long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged
errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more
than mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment include errors of procedure
or
mistakes in the court’s findings.

An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the
court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction,
and which error is correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. It
occurs when the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by laww, or
when the court although with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal; errors of jurisdiction are

correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Any judgment rendered
without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time,
even on appeal; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is
barred by estoppel.

5. JURISDICTION OVER EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this power
or authority is the exercise of jurisdiction.

6. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of
an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be
within their proper jurisdiction.It applies where a claim is originally cognizable
in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires
the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed
within the special competence of an administrative agency. In such a case,
the court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the
judicial process
pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view. or, if the
parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.

7. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction / continuity of jurisdiction

- In view of 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 which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that
jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction
over the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the
judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains
jurisdiction to enforce and execute it (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301
SCRA 96).

-the rule on adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute and has exceptions. One
of the exceptions is that when the change in jurisdiction is curative in
character (Garcia v. Martinez, 90 SCRA 331 [1979]; Calderon, Sr. v. Court of
Appeals, 100 SCRA 459 [1980]; Atlas Fertilizer Corporation v. Navarro, 149 SCRA
432 [1987]; Abad v. RTC of Manila, Br. Lll, 154 SCRA 664 [1987]) or when a
newly enacted statute changing the jurisdiction of a court is given retroactive
effect. It can divest a court of jurisdiction over cases already pending before
it is which were filed before the statute came to force or became effective.

7. JURISDICTION IN COMPLEX CRIMES

- In complex crimes, it is not uncommon that one constitutive offense

carries with it an afflictive penalty while the other or other constitutive
offenses carry with them only a correctional or even a light penalty.
Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must logically be lodged with
the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most
serious penalty imposable on an offense forming part of the complex
crime. A complex crime must be prosecuted integrally, as it were, and
not split into its component offenses and the latter made the subject of
multiple informations possibly brought in different courts.
8. OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

(1) When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the
same. (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The court may on its own initiative object to an
erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take cognizance of lack of
jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a clearly recognized right to
determine its own jurisdiction.

(2) Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. When the court
dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is
common reason that the court cannot remand the case to another court
with the proper jurisdiction. Its only power is to dismiss and not to make
any other order.

9. EFFECT OF ESTOPPEL ON OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

(1) The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to

recognition of that court’s jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning
the court’s jurisdiction. Jurisprudence however, did not intend this statement
to lay down the general rule. (Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corp.
v. Estita, 449 SCRA 240; Mangaiag v. Catubig-Pastoral, 474 SCRA 153). The
Sibonghanoy applies only to exceptional circumstances. The general rule
remains: a court’s lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings even on appeal (Francel Realty Corp. v. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424;
Concepcion v. Regalado, GR 167988, Feb. 6, 2007).

(2) The doctrine of estoppels by laches in relation to objections to

jurisdiction first appeared in the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23
SCRA 29, where the SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was
raised only after an adverse decision was rendered by the court against the
party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief from
the court and after participating in all stages of the proceedings. This doctrine
is based upon grounds of public policy and is principally a question of the
inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or
asserted.

(3) The SC frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one’s case
for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking
it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (BPI v. ALS Mgt. & Devt. Corp., 427 SCRA
564).
B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

1. HOW ACQUIRED:

a. By compulsory process like warrant of arrest

b. Through voluntary appearance ( when he surrenders to the police or
to the court)

-It requires that the person charged with the offense must have been brought
to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary
appearance/ submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

- it is only when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person
that an accused may invoke the processes of the court.

GENERAL RULE: one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have

submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

- In cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the general rule
applies, i.e., the accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding this,
there is no requirement for him to be in the custody of the law.

EXCEPTIONS to the rule that filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief

constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s
person to the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings whose
prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which
only leads to a special appearance. These pleadings are:

(1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for
dismissal are included;
(2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would
constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person.

(3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest.

 The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the
court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that
is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.

in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed

waived by the accused when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative
relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by
impugning such jurisdiction over his person. Therefore, in narrow cases
involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the processes of the
court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of
the law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court
applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of the law.

MiRANDA VS Tuliao, GR 158763, march 31, 2006

CUSTODY OF LAW Jurisdiction over the person

1 Accomplished either by his Acquired upon his arrest or voluntary

arrest or voluntary appearance
appearance (when he
surrenders to the
court or police)
2 It is required before the court required for the adjudication of reliefs
can act upon the application
for bail, but is not required for
the adjudication of other
reliefs sought by the
defendant where the mere
application thereof constitutes
a waiver of the defense of lack
of juris over the
person of the accused.
3 One can be under the custody One can be under the juris of the
of the law but not yet subject court and yet not in the custody of
to juris of the court, such as law such as when accused escapes
when a person arrested by custody after his trial commenced.
virtue files a motion to quash
the warrant
before arraignment
 4 It signifies restraint on the person
who is thereby deprived of his
own will and liberty, binding him
to become obedient to the will
of the law.

-it is literally custody over the

body of the accused. It
includes, but not limited to
detention.

For bail purposes: a person applying for bail must be in the custody of the law
or otherwise deprived of his liberty.

Reason: because the purpose of bail is to secure one’s release and it

wld be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. Thus, bail is the security
required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of law.

: The rationale behind this special rule on bail is that it discourages and
prevents resort to the former pernicious practice wherein the accused could
just send another in his stead to post his bail, without recognizing the
jurisdiction of the court by his personal appearance therein and compliance
with the requirements therefor

: If we allow the granting of bail to persons not in the custody of the

law, it is foreseeable that many persons who can afford the bail will remain
at large, and could elude being held to answer for the commission of the
offense if ever he is proven guilty.

- it is incongruous to grant bail to one who is free, it is likewise incongruous

to require one to surrender his freedom before asserting it. Human rights
enjoy a higher preference in the hierarchy of rights than property rights
demanding that due process in the deprivation of liberty must come before
its taking and not after.

C.JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY;

Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure of 2000
- provides that [s]ubject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted
and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

Territorial jurisdiction - means that a criminal action should be filed in the place
where the crime was committed, except in those cases provided for in
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code

How determined: the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is

determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is
so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the
evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction

PURPOSE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: This fundamental principle is to ensure

that the defendant is not compelled to move to, and appear in, a different
court from that of the province where the crime was committed as it would
cause him great inconvenience.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Where the offense was committed under the circs. Enumerated

under Art. 2 of RPC, the offense shall be cognizable by the court
where the criminal action is first filed.
The crime is committed in a moving plane, ship, train or private
vehicle passing through several territories (any of the territories can be the
place of trial.)
Cases of piracy, which is an international crime and can be tried
anywhere in the world.

2. Where the SC, pursuant to its constitutional powers orders a change

of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice ( sec 5(4), Art.
VIII, 1987 Constn)
3. Libel cases. ( where 1st published, where residing, where he
holds office)
4. Complex or continuing crimes (the place may be where the accused
is found and the venue is where any part of the crime was committed;
for a
 complex crime, the court with the jurisdiction to impose the highest
penalty for the crime.)
5. Where the law provides

NOTE: -A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an

offense committed outside its territorial jurisdiction except if it is a trans-
national crime.

VENUE OF ACTION and CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

-Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction, and that
the juris of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations
of the complaint or info. ( Campanano Jr. vs Datuin, 536 S 471). It
determines not only the place where te criminal action is tobe instituted,
but also the court that has jurisdition to try and hear the case.

The reason for this is two-fold:

1. The jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that
a trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed
within its territorial jurisdiction.
2. Laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity
and justice of having an accused on trial in the municipality of province
where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available.

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10660]

AN ACT STRENGTHENING FURTHER THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL

ORGANIZATION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FURTHER AMENDING
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

SECTION 1. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, is

hereby further amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 3. Constitution of the Divisions; Quorum. – The Sandiganbayan shall sit in seven (7) divisions
of three (3) members each.
“Two (2) members shall constitute a quorum for sessions in divisions: Provided, That
when the required quorum for the particular division cannot be had due to
the legal disqualification or temporary incapacity of a member or a vacancy
therein, the Presiding Justice may designate a member of another division to
be determined by strict rotation on the basis of the reverse order of
precedence, to sit as a special member of said division with all the rights and
prerogatives of a regular member of said division in the trial and
determination of a case or cases assigned thereto.”

SEC. 2. Section 4 of the same decree, as amended, is hereby further amended

to read as follows:

“SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original

jurisdiction in all cases involving:

“a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the
Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II,
Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government,
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense:

“(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional

director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No.
6758), specifically including:

“(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang

panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
provincial department heads:
“(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniangpanlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
“(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and
higher;
“(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of
higher rank;
“(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and
higher;
“(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
“(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.

“(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

“(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the

Constitution;

“(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice

to the provisions of the Constitution; and

“(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

“b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other

crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a. of this section in relation to their office.

“c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

“Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any
bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same
or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00).

“Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases falling
under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under this section shall be
tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office.
“In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding
to Salary Grade ’27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No.
6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court,
as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

“The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final

judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise
of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein
provided.

“The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising
or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over
these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

“The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the

implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may
hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of
Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman,
through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines,
except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
issued in 1986.

“In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or

accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed
in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with
said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over them.

“Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the

criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil
liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve
the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be
recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore
been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and
the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for
consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the
separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned.”

SEC. 3. Section 5 of the same decree is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 5. Proceedings, How Conducted; Decision by Majority Vote. – All three (3) members of a
division shall deliberate on all matters submitted for judgment, decision, final order, or
resolution.
“The concurrence of a majority of the members of a division shall be necessary
to render a judgment, decision, or final order, or to resolve interlocutory or
incidental motions.”

SEC. 4. Funding and Appropriations. – The amount necessary to carry out

the implementation of this Act shall be charged against the current
appropriations of the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, such sums as may be
needed for its full implementation shall be included in the annual General
Appropriations Act.

SEC. 5. Transitory Provision. – This Act shall apply to all cases pending in the
Sandiganbayan over which trial has not begun: Provided, That: (a) Section
2, amending Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, on
“Jurisdiction”; and (b) Section 3, amending Section 5 of Presidential Decree
No. 1606, as amended, on “Proceedings, How Conducted; Decision by
Majority Vote” shall apply to cases arising from offenses committed after the
effectivity of this Act.

SEC. 6. Separability Clause. – Should any provision of this Act or part hereof
be declared unconstitutional, the other provisions or parts not affected thereby
shall remain valid and effective.

SEC. 7. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, orders, and issuances, or

portions thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are
hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 8. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.
Approved, Feliciano Belmonte.

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2138 and House Bill No.
5283 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on
February 25, 2015.
NOTES ON SANDIGANBAYAN

1. The Sandiganbayan is a court that exists by constitutional fiat,

specifically Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, which provides,
as follows:

SECTION 5. The National Assembly shall create a special court, to be

known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil
cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-
owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be
determined by law.

2. The Sandiganbayan is a collegial court presently composed of

seven divisions of three members each. The term "collegial" relates to
a group of colleagues or a "collegium," which is "an executive body
with each member having approximately equal power and authority.
As such, the members of the anti-graft court act on the basis of
consensus or majority rule.

-This collegiate structure of the Sandiganbayan was acknowledged to

be necessary in order to competently try the public officials and cases
before it. Aware of the political clout that high-ranking public officials may
have, and how they could easily exert influence over single-judge courts,
a division composed of three Justices was recognized to be less
susceptible to the political reach of the public officers involved.

3. Sandiganbayan as sui generis in the judicial structure. It is not under

the Article on the Judiciary (Article X) but under the article on
Accountability of Public Officers. Moreover, the Constitution ordains it to
be "a special court."

--Indeed, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan contemplates not only an

offense against the people, as in an ordinary crime, but an offense against
the people committed precisely by their very defenders or representatives. It
involves an additional dimension - abuse of power - considered over and
above all the other elements of the offense or felony committed.

REASON FOR CREATION:

-Its creation was intended to pursue and attain the highest norms of official
conduct required of public officers and employees, based on the concept that
public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times
accountable to the people.
THE FOLLOWING REQUISITES MUST CONCUR FOR AN OFFENSE TO FALL UNDER THE
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN:

1. The offense committed is

(a) a violation of R.A. 3019, as amended or the Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act as amended;
(b) a violation of R.A. 1379 or the law on ill-gotten wealth;
(c) a violation of Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code or the law on bribery;
(d) E.O. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A,issued in 1986 or related to sequestration cases;
or
(e) all other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with other
crimes;

2. The offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a
public official or employee holding any of the positions enumerated in
paragraph (a) of Section 4; and

3. The offense committed is in relation to office.

NOTE: The latest amendment to P.D. 1606 was R.A. 10660. While R.A. 10660
retained the list of officials under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, it
streamlined the anti-graft court's jurisdiction by adding the following proviso
in Section 4 of
P.D. 1606:

Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or
any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the
same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One
million pesos (Pl,000,000.00).

Test to determine if SANDIGANBAYAN has jurisdiction over a case committed in relation to office: Does
the Information allege a close or intimate connection between the offense charged and [the
accused)'s public office and an allegation of (a)damage to the government or any bribery; or (b)
alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (Pl,000,000.00)?"

When is an offense committed in relation to public office?

- R.A. 8249 mandates that for as long as the offender's public office
is intimately connected with the offense charged or is used to
facilitate the commission of said offense and the same is properly
alleged in the information, the Sandiganbayan acquires jurisdiction.
Indeed, the law specifically states that the Sandliganbayan has
jurisdiction over all "other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection a of Section 4 in relation to
their office." Public office, it bears reiterating, need not be an
element of the offense charged. (ADAZA VS SANDIGANBAYAN)
Note however of the latest amendment to P.D. 1606 was R.A. 10660