RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Criminal Procedure
The method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of on
offense and their punishment, in case of conviction, after a trial in the manner prescribed.
History:
General Order 58 Major General Otis
1940 Rules of Court
1964 Rules of Court
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure
1988 Amended
1991 Amended (Rule 114)
December 1, 2000 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
System of Philippine Criminal Procedure
1. Inquisitorial
The detection and prosecution of criminal cases are not left to the initiative of the private parties
but to the officials and agents of the government
Example:
a. Control of the criminal case is given to the public prosecutor
b. Preliminary investigation
c. Automatic appeal
2.

Accusatorial
The role of the government is only secondary. Importance is given to the role of the victim and
the accused. The accusation is exercised by every citizen or by the group by which the injured party
belongs.
Example:
a. Right of the accused to a public trial
b. Right of the accused to be present in every stage of the proceedings
c. Right of the victim to intervene by hiring a private prosecutor

3.

Mixed

JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction in criminal cases is the power and authority of a court to take cognizance of an offense and to
pronounce a judgment or sentence provided by law after a trial in the manner prescribed.
Elements of Jurisdiction in Criminal cases:
a. Territorial Jurisdiction (2 Interim Rules)
The limits of the geographical boundaries of a place within which a court has jurisdiction to act
judicially and outside of which its judicial acts are null and void.
Jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by:
1. The geographical area over which the court presides, and
2. The fact that the crime was committed or any of its essential elements took place within said
areas.
Note: SC can order the change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice (par. 4 & 5,
Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Example:
People vs. Camilo Pilotin, et al, G.R. Nos. L-35377-78, July 31, 1975
Defendant-appellant Vincent Crisologo sought the transfer of the Criminal case No. 3949 of the
municipal court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur to the New Bilibid Prisons, or alternatively, to Camp Crame,
Aguinaldo or Olivas on the ground that if he were to be confined in Vigan Municipal jail during the
trial, his life would be in jeopardy.

Marianne Macayra

Finding the motion meritorious and applying 5(4), Art. X of the Constitution, the SC ordered the
transfer of the record of the case to the City Court of QC and the holding of the trial at Camp Crame.
b.

Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

It is determined by the allegations of the criminal complaint or information in accordance with
law in force at the time of the institution of the criminal action, not at the time of the commission of
the offense.
Essentially, it is determined by the penalty provided by law for the offense as that offense is
charged to the complaint or information.

c.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

Conferred upon the court either by the voluntary surrender of the accused or by the arrest to
answer for the crime charged. This is not lost once acquired.
Chester de Joya vs. Placido C. Marquez, G.R. 162416, January 31, 2006
Facts: May an accused question the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him by the trial court
judge without having been arrested or voluntarily submitting to the jurisdiction of the court?
Held:
x x x his continued refusal to submit to the courts jurisdiction should give this court more
reason to uphold the action of the respondent judge. The purpose of the warrant of arrest is to place
the accused under the custody of the law to hold him for trial of the charges against him. His evasive
stance shows an intent to circumvent and frustrate the objects of this legal process. It should be
remembered that he who invokes the courts jurisdiction must first submit to its jurisdiction.

Note: All the three elements must exist otherwise, the court has no jurisdiction to try and decide a criminal
case.

A P P E L L AT E J U R I S D I C T I O N
Basic Premises:
1. All appeals from the CA go to the SC.
2. All appeals from the Sandiganbayan go to the SC.
3. All appeals from the MTC, MTCC, MCTC go to the RTC regardless of the issue.
Conclusion:

The only problem in appeal is where do you appeal from the decision of the RTC?

Rule of the thumb on appeals from decision of the RTC:

Appeals, by notice of appeal or petition for review from the decision of the RTC are appealable to the
COURT OF APPEALS except to the following cases:
To the SUPREME COURT directly:
1. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
2. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is DEATH.
Note: Nos. 1 & 2 has been AMENDED by the very recent case of People vs. Efren G. Mateo (G.R.
Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) where the SC ordered the amendment of the Rules BY NOW
mandating an intermediate review by the CA in cases where the penalty imposed is DEATH,
RECLUSION PERPETUA, OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT (this case was decided after the cut-off date for
the 2004 Bar Exams)
N.B.: In both instances, if the CA should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the
circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the
case to the SC for its final disposition.
[Death penalty was abolished by R.A. No. 9346 signed into a law on June 24, 2006]

Marianne Macayra

3.

All cases in which only an amendment or question of law is involved.

Note: In cases where the jurisdiction of a court or constitutionality of a law is in issue, it must be
the only issue left, otherwise the appeal will be mixed with question of fact and law and must
be appealed to the CA.

Marianne Macayra