Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4



Due Process; mandatory and indispensable


Concept of criminal procedure



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.



Adversarial or accusatorial system



Contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears

them impartially and renders judgment only after trial (Queto v
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


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_


Law which hears before it condemns and proceeds upon inquiry

and renders judgment only after trial (Albert v University Publishing
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:



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
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
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
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



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
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
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.


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
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
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
ii. When it is necessary for the orderly administration
of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
iii. There is a prejudicial question which is subjudice
iv. Acts of the officer are without or in excess of
v. Prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
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





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
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
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
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




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
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
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