Criminal procedure treats of the series of processes by which the
criminal laws are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who violate the penal laws. People v Lacson Criminal procedure regulates the steps by which one who committed a crime is to be punished. Criminal law define and prescribes punishment for crimes; Criminal Procedure lays down the processes by which an offender is made to answer for the violation of the criminal laws. The procedure starts with the initial contact of the alleged lawbreaker with the justice machinery including the investigation of the crime and concludes either with a judgment exonerating the accused or the final imposition of a penalty against him. Balances societal interest between the government and those of the individual.
2.
3.
Adversarial or accusatorial system
1. 2. 3.
4.
Contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears
them impartially and renders judgment only after trial (Queto v Catolico) Two-sided structure consisting of the prosecution and the defense where each side tries to convince the court that its position is the correct version of the truth. Court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The court in this system therefore, has a passive role and relies largely on the evidence presented by both sides to the action in order to reach a verdict. As distinguished from the inquisitorial system, the court plays an active role and is not limited to the evidence presented before it. Judge or group of judges may gather evidence. Counsel has less active role.
Liberal interpretation of the rules
1. 2. 3.
Rules of CrimPro, being parts of the RoC, shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding Relaxation of rules is granted in criminal cases since the person is at risk of being deprived of his liberty. The rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, such that any rigid and strict application thereof which results in technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided (Cariaga v People_
4.
Law which hears before it condemns and proceeds upon inquiry
and renders judgment only after trial (Albert v University Publishing House) Requirements of due process in CrimPro (Monte v Savellano Jr) a. The court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it [JURISDICTION] b. That jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused; c. That the accused is given opportunity to be heard; and d. That judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing. Requisites for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction (Cruz v CA) a. Jurisdiction over subject matter; i. Jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case. b. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and i. Jurisdiction, not of the subject matter of the criminal litigation, but over the person charged. This kind of jurisdiction requires that the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court (Antiporda v Garchitorena) c. Jurisdiction over the territory i. This element requires that the offense or where anyone of the essential ingredients must have been committed within the courts territorial jurisdiction. To be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information as regards the place where the offense charged was committed. ii. The purpose of which is not to compel the defendant 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 in looking for his witnesses and other evidence in another place. iii. It is doctrinal in criminal cases, venue is an essential element of jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint in the information Court has jurisdiction to try offenses not committed within its territorial jurisdiction, these are the exceptions to the rule:
a.
4.
Where the offense was committed under the circumstances
enumerated in Art. 2 of RPC, offense shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed. b. Where the SC, pursuant to its constitutional powers orders a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice c. Offense is committed in a train, aircraft or other public/private vehicle in the course of its trip. Jurisdiction is anywhere the train passed during its trip, place of departure/arrival. d. Offense committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried not necessarily in the place of the commission of the crime. It may be brought and tried in the court of the first port of entry, or in the municipality or territory where the vessel passed during the voyage. e. Case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction of which depends upon the nature of the offense and the position of the accused, the offense need not be tried in the place where the act was c f. Offense is oral defamation, filed at the city where the offended party held office at the time of the commission of the offense if he be a public officer or where he resided if he be a private individual g. Offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action maybe filed in the RTC of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published. h. Offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be field in the RTC of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense. i. Offended party is public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the RTC. j. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be field in the RTC of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense. k. 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. This interpretation would, said the Court would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent. Its a hassle to be sued anywhere in the country. l. Merely alleging the frequency of the persons/act in a particular place does not vest jurisdiction. Criminal jurisdiction over the subject matter
a.
5.
Jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority to
hear and determine a cause- it is a question of law. b. Specifically, criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it. c. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belongs. It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and means not simply jurisdiction over the particular case then occupying the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs. d. Such jurisdiction is conferred by law. It is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules. When the law confers jurisdiction, such conferment must be clear and cannot be presumed; must appear from the statute. e. Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of the parties. f. Reference to the applicable statute is necessary to determine jurisdiction. g. Such jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. h. Jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law, jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. i. Complaint or information must be examined to determine jurisdiction. j. Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not by the evidence presented by the parties at trial. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. k. In cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, both the nature of the offense and the position occupied by the accused are conditions sine qua non before the Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance l. In complex crimes, jurisdiction is with the court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious penalty imposable on the offense forming part of the complex crime. Statute applicable to a criminal action 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 of the accused or at the time the offense was committed.
6.
Use of imposable penalty
a. Jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial, but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for the offense, on the basis of the facts alleged in the information or complaint 7. Principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing jurisdiction a. Once the court has acquired jurisdiction, it continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. Once vested, jurisdiction cannot be withdrawn or defeated by a subsequent valid amendment of the information, it cannot be lost by a new law amending the rules on jurisdiction. b. Except when the statue expressly so provides or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate upon actions pending before enactment. 8. Dismissal on jurisdictional grounds; special appearance a. An objection based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised or considered moti proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. b. A special appearance before the court to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over the person is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver of the objection and is not a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. 9. Raising the issue of jurisdiction for the 1st time in the SC a. Accused is not precluded, SC may consider the issue motu proprio b. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. This is an exception and not the GR, hence higher court may rule want of jurisdiction of the lower court that tried the case. 10. Criminal jurisdiction over the person of the accused a. Jurisdiction acquired upon arrest or apprehension, with or without warrant, or his voluntary or submission to the jurisdiction of the court. b. The voluntary submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court may be effected by filing a motion to quash, appearing for arraignment, participating in the trial or by giving bail. c. The assertion that the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused because the warrant of arrest is null and void because no probable cause was found by the court issuing it, cannot be sustained because he posted bail. The giving or posting bail by the accused is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction
of the court. Even if it is conceded that the warrant issued
was void, the defendant waived all his rights to object by appearing and giving bond. d. Making a special appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court to question the jurisdiction over the person accused is not a voluntary appearance as when in a criminal case a motion to quash is filed precisely on that ground. e. Custody of law is not necessarily being under jurisdiction of the court files a motion to quash. Reverse for escapees. Custody of law implies restraint in person/will/liberty. 11. Injunction to restrain criminal prosecution a. GR: Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal prosecution. Especially if the case is still in the preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. b. Exceptions: i. Injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused. ii. When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions iii. There is a prejudicial question which is subjudice iv. Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority v. Prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation vi. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent vii. Court has no jurisdiction viii. Persecution rather than prosecution ix. Charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance x. No prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash that ground has been denied 12. Mandamus to compel prosecution a. Mandamus is a remedial measure for parties aggrieved which shall be issued when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. b. Mandamus not applicable for the exercise of discretion
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS
1.
MunTC,MCTC and MTC
a.
Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC and of the Sandiganbayan, MTC shall exercise the following jurisdiction: i. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction. ii. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable or accessory penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount. iii. Where the only penalty provided for by the law is a fine, the amount thereof shall determine the jurisdiction of the court under the original provisions of BP 129 (32(2)) which provided that the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with a fine not more than 4k iv. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence v. Violations of BP 22 vi. Summary procedures under 1. Violations of traffic law, rules and regulations, violations of the rental law; and violations of municipal or city ordinances; 2. All other criminal charges where the penalty is imprisonment not exceeding imprisonment of 6months or fine not exceeding 1k, irrespective of other imposable penalties 3. Damage to property involving criminal negligence, fine imposable does not exceed 10k
vii. 2.
RTC a.
3.
Special jurisdiction to decide on application for bail
in criminal cases in the absence of RTC judges in a province or city.
Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. b. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction c. Special jurisdiction to handle exclusively criminal cases designated by the SC d. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws such as: i. Written defamation ii. Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act iii. Violation of intellectual property rights iv. Violation of PD 957, subdivision and condominium regulation law e. Money laundering cases Sandiganbayan a. Set by PD 1606 as amended by RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act) executive/congress/judiciary/concom/other officials branch officials with salary grade 27 and higher b. Simple or complexed crimes committed by public officials/employees c. Those not reaching 27 or higher salary grade will be tried at RTC, MTC, MunTC and MCTC d. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of RTC e. 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 appellate jurisdiction an over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under EOs 1,2,14,14-A
Ore Carriers of Liberia, Inc., As Owner of M v. Tyne Ore, Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant v. Navigen Company and Navios Corporation, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees, 435 F.2d 549, 2d Cir. (1970)