I.

General Principles Differences between Criminal Procedure and

Criminal Law
Remedial Law - details the methods for Criminal Law Criminal
enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their Procedure
invasion (Black’s Law Dictionary) Substantive Nature Remedial
Criminal Procedure Define what Purpose Provides how
acts are acts are punished
– rules of law governing the procedures by punishable
which crimes are investigated, prosecuted, Defines Subject Method by
adjudicated, and punished crimes, treats Matter which the
for their accused is
- a proceeding whereby the State prosecutes a nature, arrested, tried,
person for an act or omission punishable by
provides for and punished if
law their convicted
- method prescribed by law for apprehension punishment
and prosecution of persons accused at any
criminal offense (Herrera)
Adversarial/Accusatory System
- treats of the series of processes by which the
- contemplates two contending parties before
criminal laws are enforced and by which the
a court which hears them impartially renders
state prosecutes persons who violate the penal
judgment only after trial (Queto v Catolico)
laws
- requires all crimes, except the so-called
- concerned with the procedural steps through
private offenses which must be commenced by
which a criminal case passes, commencing
the complaint of the offended party, to be
with the initial investigation of a crime and
prosecuted by a public prosecutor. The
concluding with the unconditional release of
accused has the right to be present at any stage
the offender or punishment in case of
of the proceedings and to be heard personally
conviction
and by counsel. Trial is conducted publicly,
- describes the network of laws and rules and the right of the accused against self-
which governs the procedural administration incrimination is guaranteed. Furthermore, the
of criminal justice, that is, laws and court rules accused enjoys the presumption of innocence
governing arrest, search and seizure, bail, etc which lasts until his guilt is proved beyond
(Black’s Law Dictionary) reasonable doubt. The right to appeal is a
characteristic feature of this system, although
- starts with the initial contact of the alleged the judgment of the trial court does not
lawbreaker with the justice machinery and require the imprimatur of the court of last
concludes either with a judgment exonerating resort before it may attain finality. (Pamaran,
the accused or the final imposition of a penalty 2007)
against him
-It is of the essence of the accusatorial system
grounded in the due process school of

Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga

Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
criminology that there be moral certainty of
guilt to defeat the constitutional presumption
of innocence (People v Egot)
- confrontative and trial is publicly held and
ends with magistrate rendering verdict (Riano)
Essence: Presumption of innocence
Inquisitorial System
- court has active role and it is not limited to
the evidence presented before it. The court
may utilize evidence gathered outside the
court and a judge or a group of judges under
this system actively participates in gathering
facts rather than mere passively receiving
information. The judge steers the course of the
proceedings by directing and supervising the
gathering of evidence. Counsel has less active
role. (Riano)
- secret inquiry to discover culprit; judge may
proceed with own inquiry
- the prosecution of crimes is wholly in the
hands of the prosecuting officer and the court.
The presence of the accused before the
magistrate is not a requirement. The judgment,
however, does not become final until it has
been ratified and confirmed by the court of
last resort (US v Samio)
Essence: secrecy
Construction of rules
- “These rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding.” (Sec. 6, Rule 1
of the Rules of Court)
- must be viewed as tools to facilitate the
attainment of justice
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
- Formal defects and technicalities which do
not affect the substantial rights of the parties
should be cured during the trial.
- It is elementary that rules of criminal
procedure are given retroactive application
insofar as they benefit the accused (Buebos v
People)
- “…the Rules of Court frowns upon hair-
splitting technicalities that do not square with
their liberal tendency and with the ends of
justice.” (Cabunilas v CA)
Purpose: to protect the substantial rights of the
accused as the justice machinery of the state
will attempt to intrude into the accused’s right
to life, liberty, and property
Jurisdiction
- power given by law to court to hear and
determine cases (Herrera v Barreto) and to
execute the judgment thereon (Echegaray v
Secretary of Justice) and it is coram judice
whenever a case is presented which brings the
power into action
- authority to inquire into the facts, apply the
law, and pronounce judgment
- derived from the two Latin words “juris” and
“dico” (I speak by the law) which means
fundamentally the power or the capacity given
by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain,
hear and determine certain controversies
(People v Mariano)
- the power to hear and determine matters in
controversy according to established rules of
law and to carry the sentence or judgment of
the court into execution (Morando v Rovira)
- includes not only the power expressly
conferred by law, but all such power as may be
necessary for the full exercise and enjoyment Elements:
of that expressly conferred (State ex rel. 1. Nature and penalty of the offense
Dauphin v Ellis) 2. What is alleged in the Information
3. Where the offense is committed
Elements: 4. The law in force at the time of the
1. The law has given the tribunal capacity to institution of the complaint/Information
entertain the complaint (exception: if the repealing law provides
2. Such complaint has actually been preferred otherwise)
3. The person or thing sought to be charged or
affected has been properly brought before the REQUISITES FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF
tribunal to answer the charge therein CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
contained (Republic v Sunga) 1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER)
Note: Jurisdiction is vested in the Court, not
in the judges. - The offense is one which the court has
authority to take cognizance of
Venue
- the authority to hear and determine a
- particular geographical area in which a court particular criminal case
with jurisdiction may hear and determine a
case (Black’s Law Dictionary) - jurisdiction over the nature of the cause of
action and of the relief sought
- place of trial
- the power to hear and determine cases of the
- geographical location where the case shall be general class to which the proceedings in
instituted, heard, and tried (Tan) question belong and is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court
VENUE JURISDICTION
and defines its powers (Reyes v Diaz)
Deals with the Treats of the power of
locality, the place the court to decide - In order to ascertain whether a court has
where the suit may be the case on the merits jurisdiction or not, the provisions of the law
had shall be inquired into (Soller v Sandiganbayan)
Procedural Substantive
Elements:

The place where the crime is committed 1. nature of the offense

determines not only the venue of the action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction.
Criminal Jurisdiction
- the authority to hear and try a particular
offense and impose the punishment for it
(People v Mariano)
2. authority to impose penalty
3. territorial jurisdiction of court imposing
penalty
Note:
 it can be challenged at any stage of the
proceedings and for lack of it, a court can
dismiss a case ex mero motu.

Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga

Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
 In order to determine the jurisdiction of
the court, the complaint must be examined
for the purpose of ascertaining the
abovementioned elements.
 The court’s jurisdiction in the first
instance is determined by facts alleged in
the complaint and not by the qualification
of the crime made in the title of the
complaint or by the result of proof after
trial
 Applicable statute is the one in force at the
time of the institution of the action and
not the one at the time of its commission
(People v Lagon)
 Conferment must be clear, not presumed
 Cannot be fixed by the will of the parties
 Not conferred by mere administrative
policy of any trial court (Cudia v CA)
 In case the court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter, it shall be a ground for
a motion to quash under Sec 3 Rule 117
and the case will be dismissed. (Tan)
2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
THE ACCUSED
- the taking into custody by court of the
person of the accused in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of the
offense (Pamaran, 2007)
- authority of the court over the person
charged
- person charged must have been brought into
its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest
or voluntarily by voluntary surrender
(Antiporda v Garchitorena)
Note:
 Voluntary submission of the accused may
be effected by posting bail or by filing a
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
motion to quash or by appearing at the
arraignment or participating in the trial or
entering trial.
 The voluntary appearance of the accused,
through counsel, at the pre-suspension
hearing held in connection with an anti-
graft charge, is considered to be
submission to the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, even if no warrant has
been issued for his arrest. (Layosa v
Rodriguez)
 If the court lawfully acquires jurisdiction
of his person after he is within reach of its
process, the means used to bring him there
will not be inquired into (Pamaran, 2007)
 May be waived through special appearance
USE OF IMPOSABLE PENALTY: consider
the penalty which may be imposed upon the
accused and not the actual penalty imposed
after the trial. The penalty imposable shall be
determined by what the law imposes for the
offense on the basis of the facts alleged in the
information
GENERAL RULE: Filing pleadings seeking
affirmative relief constitutes voluntary
appearance and consequent submission of
one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court
EXCEPTION: Pleadings whose prayer is
precisely for the avoidance of jurisdiction and
which leads to special appearance:
A. in civil cases – motion to dismiss due to lack
of jurisdiction over the person of defendant
(failure to file is waiver of the defense of lack
of jurisdiction)
B. in criminal cases – motion to quash due to
lack of jurisdiction (failure to file is waiver of
the defense of lack of jurisdiction)
C. motion to quash warrant of arrest
(questions legality of court process)
 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 (Garcia v Sandiganbayan)
 Failure to make objection to the
jurisdiction of the court is waiver of such
right
 Being in custody of the law ≠ being under
the jurisdiction of court
Being in custody of the law – 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; being in
custody over the body of the accused
Nolle Prosequi – dismissal of criminal case by
the government before the accused is placed
on trial and before he is called to plead, with
approval of the court in the exercise of its
judicial discretion
3. JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
- the offense must have been committed/ its
essential ingredients took place in the territory
where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or try the offense
- limits of geographical boundaries of a place
within which a court has jurisdiction to act
judicially
- the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or
province wherein the offense was committed
or where any of its essential ingredients took
place (Sec. 15, Rule 110)
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
Rationale: The principle seeks to preclude
harassment of the defendant and to save him
from the inconvenience and expense in
looking for his witnesses and other evidence in
another place
Note: The concept of venue is jurisdictional.
The place where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction.
How determined: By the allegations in the
information as the situs of the crime. Hence,
even if the court subsequently dismisses the
action upon proof that the offense was
committed outside its territory, all proceedings
prior thereto are valid (People v Galano)
Exception: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
1. Where the offense was committed under
the circumstances enumerated in Article 2
RPC – “Except as provided in the treaties and
laws of preferential application, the provisions
of this Code shall be enforced not only within
the Philippine archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime
zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,
against those who:
a. Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship;
b. Should forge or counterfeit coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands
or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippine
Islands;
c. Should be liable for acts connected
with the introduction into these
Islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number;
d. While being public officers or
employees, should commit an offense
in the exercise of their functions; or
 e. Should commit any of the crimes
against national security and the law
of nations, defined in Title One, Book
Two of this Code.”
Crimes against national security:
1. Treason
2. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit treason
3. Misprision of treason
4. Espionage
5. Inciting to war and giving motives for
reprisal
6. Violation of neutrality
7. Correspondence with hostile country
8. Flight to enemy country
Crimes against law of nations:
1. Piracy 3. Qualified Piracy
2. Mutiny
JD: the offense is triable before Philippine
courts notwithstanding the fact that it was
committed outside of the Philippine territory.
JD in case of piracy: Pirates are in law “hostes
humani generis”. Piracy may be punished in
the competent tribunal of any country where
the offender may be found or into which he
may be carried.
2. Where the Supreme Court, pursuant to its
constitutional powers, orders a change of
venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of
justice
Sec. 5 (4) Article VIII 1987 Constitution:
The Supreme Court has the power to order a
change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice
3. Where an offense is committed in a railroad
train, aircraft, or other public or private
vehicle in the course of its trip
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
JD: the criminal action may be instituted and
tried in the court of any municipality or
territory where such train, aircraft, or other
vehicle passed during such trip, including the
place of departure and arrival
4. Where an offense is committed on board a
vessel in the course of its voyage
JD: The criminal action may be instituted and
tried in the proper court of the first port of
entry or in the municipality or territory
through which the vessel passed during such
voyage subject to the generally accepted
principles of international law
5. Where the case is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan
JD: depends upon the nature of the offense
and the position of the accused as conditions
sine qua non before the Sandiganbayan can
validly take cognizance of the case
Sec.2 RA8249
When the greater convenience of the accused
and of the witnesses or other compelling
reasons require, a case originating from one
geographical region may be heard in another
geographical region
6. Where the offense is written defamation
Art 360 RPC – “…may be filed in the province
or city where the offended party held office at
the time of commission of the offense if he is a
public officer or in the province or city where
he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense in case the offended
party is a private individual.”
RA 4363
“The criminal and civil actions for damages in
cases of written defamations…shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with CFI of the
province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published OR where any of
the offended parties actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense…”
Agbayani v Sayo
A. If the offended party is a public official or a
private person, the criminal action may be
filed in RTC of the province/city where the
libelous article is printed and first published
B. If the offended party is a private individual,
it may be filed in RTC of the province where
he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense.
C. If the offended party is a public officer
whose office is in Manila at the time of the
commission of the offense, the action may be
filed in RTC Manila.
D. If the offended party is a public officer
holding office outside Manila, it may be filed
in the RTC of the province/city where he held
office at the time of the commission of the
offense.
 If the offended party used as basis the
circumstance where the libel was printed
and first published as basis for venue, the
information must allege with particularity
where the defamatory article was printed
and first published.
 If defamatory material appears on a
website, the place where it is first accessed
CANNOT BE equated with “printing and
first publication”
 Circulation in an area ≠ publication
 Place of work ≠ residence
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
HOW CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IS
DETERMINED
1. In case of 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 (Cuyos v Garcia)
2. In case what is imposed is only fine– the
amount shall determine the jurisdiction
MTC – penalty of P4,000 or less
RTC – penalty of more than P4,000, including
offenses by public officer or employee in
relation to their office except in cases of
criminal negligence involving damage to
property
3. In case of continuing crimes –courts of
territories where the essential ingredients of
the crime took place have concurrent
jurisdiction but the court which first acquires
jurisdiction excludes others.
4. In case of crimes of destierro – jurisdiction
is lodged in Municipal Trial Courts
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION –
The power of the court to take judicial
cognizance of a case instituted for judicial
action for the first time under the conditions
provided by law, and to the exclusion of other
courts. (Tan)
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION – the power of
the court to take judicial cognizance of a case
instituted for judicial action for the first time
under the conditions provided by law. (Tan)
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION – the power to
adjudicate a case or proceeding to the
exclusion of all other courts at that stage. (Tan)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION – the power and
authority conferred upon a superior court to
rehear and determine causes which have been
tried in lower courts, the cognizance which a
superior court takes of a case removed to it ,
by appeal or writ of error, from the decision of
a lower court, or the review by a superior
court of the final judgment or order of some
lower courts. (Tan)
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION – also called
coordinate or confluent jurisdiction. It is the
power conferred upon different courts,
whether of the same or different ranks, to take
cognizance at the same stage of the same case
in the same or different judicial territories.
(Tan)
DOCTRINE OF THE HIERARCHY OF
COURTS
The doctrine that requires the respect for the
hierarchy of courts was created by the court to
ensure that every level of the judiciary
performs its designated roles in an effective
and efficient manner. Trial courts do not only
determine facts from the evaluation of
evidence presented before them. They are
likewise competent to determine issues of law
which may include the validity of ordinance,
statute, or even an executive issuance in
relation to the Constitution. To effectively
perform these functions, they are territorially
organized into regions and then into branches.
Their writs generally reach within those
territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly
perform the all-important task of inferring the
facts from the evidence as these are physically
presented before them. In many instances, the
facts occur within their territorial jurisdiction,
which properly present the ‘actual case’ that
makes ripe a determination of the
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
constitutionality of such action. The
consequences of course would be national in
scope. There are, however, some cases where
resort to courts at their level would not be
practical considering their decisions could still
be appealed before the higher courts, such as
the CA. (The Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC)
ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION
- Once jurisdiction is vested in court, that
jurisdiction continues until the court has done
all that it can do in the exercise of that
jurisdiction (until final determination). The
jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent
legislation vesting jurisdiction in another
tribunal.
Exception to the rule: when a statute expressly
provides/is construed to the effect that it is
intended to operate upon actions pending
before its enactment.
DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Source: Sec 1 Article III Bill of Rights 1987
Constitution – “No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of
law…”
Requirements:
1. Court is properly clothed with judicial
power to hear and determine the matter
before it
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired by
the court over the person of the accused
3. Defendant must be given an opportunity to
be heard
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful
hearing
RAISING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE SUPREME
COURT
Fukuzume v People : An accused is not
precluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction
of the trial court over the offense charged
because the issue may be raised or considered
motu proprio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or on appeal.
Antiporda v Garchitorena : A party cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponents and
after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
People v Munar : After voluntarily submitting
a cause and encountering an adverse decision
on the merits, it is too late for the loser to
question the jurisdiction or power of the court.
Tijam v Sibonghanoy : A party may be
estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of
the court for reasons of public policy as when
he initially invokes the jurisdiction of the
court and then later on repudiates that same
jurisdiction.
Pangilinan v CA : Even on appeal, and even if
the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of
jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not
precluded from ruling that the lower court
had no jurisdiction over the case.
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION
General Rule: The court will not issue writs of
prohibition or injunction, preliminary or final,
to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution
Exceptions:
1. When the injunction is necessary to afford
adequate protection to the constitutional
rights of the accused
2. When it is necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid oppression
or multiplicity of actions
3. When there is a prejudicial question which
is subjudice
4. When the acts of the officer are without or
in excess of authority
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid
law, ordinance, or regulation
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over
the offense
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by the lust for vengeance
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case
against the accused and a motion to quash on
that ground has been denied
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR CRIMES –
INTERRUPTION
RPC: Article 91 – “The period of prescription
shall commence to run from the day on which
the crime is discovered by the offended party,
the authorities, or their agents, and shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information, and shall commence to run again
when such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him. The term of prescription
shall not run when the offender is absent from
the Philippine archipelago.”
Special laws: Sec 2 Act 3326 – “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.”
Romualdez v Marcelo:
Parameters of Prescription:
1. Period of prescription of offense charged
2. Time the period starts to run
3. Time the prescriptive period is interrupted
II. Jurisdiction
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
- Local Government Code, Book III, Title I,
Chapter 7
- Barangay Justice System introduced in 1978
for resolution of local level disputes. Its
function is not to judge but to assist.
- the referral of a case to the Lupon for
conciliation or settlement is required before a
complaint, petition, or action is filed in court.
The invocation of judicial authority shall be
allowed only if a certification is issued by the
proper barangay official that judicial
intervention may now be availed of because
the desired conciliation or settlement was not
reached.(Riano, 2011)
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
General Rules:
1. No lawyers are allowed in barangay
hearings.
2. Not all cases go to the Katarungan
Pambarangay.
3. Execution may be filed in court.
4. The Lupong Tagamayapa is NOT a court.
Prerequisites to filing of complaint in court
 A confrontation between the parties
before the lupon chairman or the pangkat
ng tagapagkasundo is needed before the
complaint, petition, action, or proceeding
may be filed or instituted directly in court
or any other government office for
adjudication.
 The parties thereto may still go to the
court either (1) when the lupon secretary
or pangkat secretary as attested to by the
lupon or pangkat chairman certifies that
no conciliation or settlement has been
reached, or (2) when the parties
repudiated the settlement.
Exceptions:
The following may go directly to court:
1. If the person is already detained.
2. In case of habeas corpus.
3. There is provisional remedy.
4. Offense has prescribed
 Where the offense is punishable by
imprisonment of at least 4 years, 2 months and
1 day, barangay conciliation is not required.
 Rules on criminal procedure begin to
grind when a complaint in affidavit form is
filed before an authorized officer. (Riano,
2011)
Arbitration Conciliation Mediation • If it involves work, in the place of where
the workplace or institution is located.
Arbitrator Assistance/ Assistance
determines the Negotiation
outcome Steps in the Amicable Settlement
No formal rules There is no There is a
of procedure structured structured
process process

Functions of the Lupon

1. Supervise the various pangkat.
2. Meet regularly for the amicable
settlements.
What cases are not included?
1. One party is the government.
2. One party is a public officer and the
dispute is related to his performance of
official functions
3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment
exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding
Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
4. No private offended party
5. Real property from different
municipalities
6. Disputes involving parties who actually
reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except when such
barangays adjoin each other
7. Such other classes of disputes which the
President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice.
Where is the venue?
• If both parties are residents of the same
barangay, before the lupon of the
barangay.
• Different barangays but in the same
municipality, in the barangay of the
respondent.
• If real property is involved, in the place
where the real property is situated.
Settlement is final when?
 Within 10 days
 Must be executed within 6 mos.
 Report to the court
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
I. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
Sec. 32 BP 129 , as amended by RA 7691:
Except in cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts
and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction; and
(2) 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:
PROVIDED, however, that in offenses

Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga

Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
involving damage to property through
criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof.
Art. 27 Revised Penal Code : MTC has
jurisdiction over offenses punishable by up to
the maximum of prision correccional which
shall not exceed six years (EXCEPTION:
express provision of law)
RA 7691 : In case of offenses where fine is
P4,000 or less
RA 8249 : In criminal cases of government
officials with offenses punishable by
imprisonment of 6 years or less or a fine of
P4,000 or less and with Salary Grade lower
than 27
What are the cases falling under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of MTC in ordinary
criminal action?
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. In all cases of damage to property through
criminal negligence, regardless of other
penalties and the civil liabilities arising
therefrom; and
4. All offenses (except violations of RA3019,
RA1379, and Articles 210-212 of the RPC)
committed by public officers and employees in
relation to their office, including those
employed in GOCCs and by private
individuals charged as co-principals,
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
accomplices or accessories, punishable with
imprisonment of not more than 6 years with a
salary grade of less than 27. (Tan)
II. Special Jurisdiction
PROVISION INVOLVED:
Sec. 35 BP129 : In the absence of all the
Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any
Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial
Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear
and determine petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases
in the province or city where the absent
Regional Trial Judges sit.
What are the cases falling under the special
jurisdiction of the MTC/MCTC?
In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges
in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial
Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide the
following:
1. Petition for habeas corpus; and
2. Application for bail in criminal case. (Tan)
III. Rule on Summary Procedure
PROVISION INVOLVED:
Sec. 1 par B of the 1991 Rules on 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 6 months, or a
fine not exceeding one thousand pesos
(P1,000) 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).
This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where
the plaintiff’s cause of action is pleaded in the
same complaint with another cause of action
subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a
criminal case where the offense charged is
necessarily related to another criminal case
subject to the ordinary procedure.
What are the cases falling under the Rules on
Summary Procedure in criminal cases?
1. Traffic violations
2. Violations of the rental law
3. Violations of city or municipal ordinances
4. All other offenses where the penalty does
not exceed 6 months liabilities arising
therefrom, and in offenses involving damage
to property through criminal negligence
where the imposable fine does not exceed
P10,000
5. Violation of BP22/Bouncing Checks Law
6. Damage to property through criminal
negligence where fine does not exceed
P10,000 (Tan)
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
Does the MTC/MCTC have jurisdiction over
all offenses punishable by imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years?
No, Sec. 32 of BP129, as amended by RA7691,
is qualified by the phrase “Except in cases
falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and of
the Sandiganbayan” which only means that
there are offenses though punishable by an
imprisonment of not exceeding 6 years falls
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
or the RTC as prescribed by law. (Tan)
What are the instances where the penalty of
imprisonment imposed by law does not exceed
6 years but jurisdiction lies with the RTC/SB?
1. Libel case by means of writing or similar
means is penalized under Art355 RPC with a
penalty of PC min-max period or a fine
ranging from P200 to P6,000 but falls under
the jurisdiction of the RTC under Art 360 of
the same Code;
2. Other forms of direct bribery penalized
under Art 210 of the RPC with penalty of
imprisonment of PC med falls within the
jurisdiction of the SB pursuant to Sec 4 (a)
PD1606 as amended by RA8249;
3. Indirect bribery penalized under Art 211
RPC with a penalty of imprisonment of PC
med and max also falls within the jurisdiction
of SB pursuant to Sec 4(a) PD1606 as amended
by RA8249, as further amended by RA 10660
(Tan)
SUMMARY PROCEEDING SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Court action in which Immediate process,
the formal procedures issuing and taking
normally applicable effect without
to matters are intermediate
dispensed with applications or delays
BP 22 violation vis-a-vis RPC Art. 315
violation
Sec.5 BP22:
Liability under the Revised Penal Code –
Prosecution under this Act shall be without
prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the RPC.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
I. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
PROVISION INVOLVED:
Sec. 20 BP 129 : Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise 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 which shall hereafter be
exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
What are the cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTC?
1. Criminal cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body (sec
20, BP129)
2. Criminal cases where the penalty provided
by law exceeds 6 years of imprisonment
irrespective of the fine (RA7691)
3. In cases where none of the accused are
occupying positions corresponding to SG27 or
higher, as prescribed in RA6758, or military or
PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in
the proper RTC, MTC/MCTC, as the case may
be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions.
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
4. In cases where the only penalty provided by
law is a fine, RTC have jurisdiction if the
amount of the fine exceeds P4,000
5. Jurisdiction over complex crimes
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 the complex crime. A complex
crime must be prosecuted integrally and the
latter made the subject of multiple
informations possibily brought in different
courts. (Cuyos v Garcia)
6. Illegal recruitment cases as penalized under
RA8042
7. Violation of the provisions of the
Intellectual Property Code
8. Violation of Environmental laws, rules and
regulations (sec. 2 Rule 9 Part IV of Rules of
Procedure of Environmental Cases, AM No.
09-6-8 SC) (Tan)
Morales v CA:
RTC will try even if punishment is 6 years or
less: (mnemonic: LIDO)
Libel
Intellectual Property Law violations
Dangerous Drugs Act violations
Omnibus Election Code violations
If offender is a government official –
The offense must be punishable by
imprisonment of more than 6 years or the fine
is more than P4,000 and the official must have
a salary grade of less than 27 for the RTC to
have jurisdiction over the criminal case
(PD1606 as amended by RA8249)
II. Concurrent and Original Jurisdiction
1. Concurrent with the Supreme Court
- Actions affecting ambassadors, public
ministers, and consuls (Sec. 21 (1) BP129)
2. Concurrent with Supreme Court and CA
- Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
(sec.5(1) Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution)
3. Concurrent with SC, CA, and SB
- Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus, if they relate to an act or omission
of a trial court, corporation, board, officer, or
person (sec. 4 Rule 65 as amended by AM No.
07-7-12-SC)
- Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of
habeas data (Sec.3 AM No. 07-9-12-SC)
4. With MTC/MCTC
- Application for Protection Order under Sec.
10 RA 9282, unless there is a Family Court in
the residence of petitioner
III. Family Court
RA8369 – Family Court’s Act of 1997; it
established the Family Courts and granted
them exclusive original jurisdiction over child
and family cases, as follows:
1. Criminal cases where one or more of the
accused is below 18 years of age but not less
than 9 years of age, when one or more of the
victims is a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense: PROVIDED, that if
the minor is found guilty, the court shall
promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil
liability which the accused may have incurred.
The sentence, however, shall be suspended
without need of application pursuant to
PD1903 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code)
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
2. Cases against minors cognizable under
RA9165/CDDA
3. Violations of RA7160 (Special Protection of
Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation,
and Discrimination Act)
4. Violations of RA9775 (Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009)
5. Cases of violence against women and their
children under RA9262 (Anti-VAWC Act),
including applications for Protection Order
under the same Act
6. Criminal cases involving juveniles if no
preliminary investigation is required under
Sec. 1 Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure (Tan)
IV. Dangerous Drugs Court
RTC has jurisdiction in criminal cases of
violations of CDDA except in case of minor
violators.
V. Appellate Jurisdiction
PROVISION INVOLVED:
Sec 22 BP129: RTCs shall exercise appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such
cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire
record of the proceedings had in the court of
origin such memoranda and/or briefs as may
be submitted by the parties or required by the
RTCs. The decisions of the RTCs in such cases
shall be appealable by petition for review to
the CA which may give it due course only
when the petition shows prima facie that the
lower court has committed an error of fact or
law that will warrant a reversal or
modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed.
What are the cases falling under the appellate
jurisdiction of the RTC?
RTC has appellate jurisdiction over decisions
and final orders of the:
1. Metropolitan Trial Court
2. Municipal Trial Court
3. Municipal Circuit Trial Court (Tan)
VI. Special Jurisdiction
PROVISION INVOLVED:
Sec. 23 BP129: The Supreme Court may
designate certain branches of the RTCs to
handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and
domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban
land reform cases which do not fall under the
jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and
agencies, and/or such other special cases as the
SC may determine in the interest of a speedy
and efficient administration of justice.
What are the cases falling under the special
jurisdiction of the RTCs?
1. exclusively criminal cases
2. juvenile and domestic relations cases
3. agrarian cases
4. urban land reform cases which do not fall
under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies
5. Other special cases as the SC may determine
in the interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice (Tan)
VII. Other laws
RA7005 – In criminal cases of officials of
AFP/PNP involving violations of RPC, special
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
penal laws, or local government ordinances,
the case must be filed in PROPER CIVIL
COURTS
EXCEPTION: when the offense is service-
connected (case is cognizable by court
martial)
RA10175 – Cybercrime Law
RTC has jurisdiction in cybercrime cases -
1. involving offenses by Filipino national,
regardless of place of commission;
2. committed within the Philippines or where
the computer is used in the Philippines;
3. where damage is caused to a person in the
Philippines.
SANDIGANBAYAN
 A special court of the same level as the CA
and possessing all the inherent power of a
court of justice
I. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
RA8249:
1. Violations of RA3019, RA1379, and CH2
Sec2 Title VII Book II of RPC, 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:
A. Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional director
and higher, otherwise classified as SG27
and higher, including:
i. Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan and provincial treasurers,
 assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads;
ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of
the Sangguniang Panglunsod and city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and
other city department heads;
iii. Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and
higher;
iv. Philippine army and air force
colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank;
v. Officers of the PNP, while occupying
the position of provincial director and
those holding the rank of senior
superintendent or higher;
vi. City and provincial prosecutors and
their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
vii. Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of GOCCs, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations;
B. Members of Congress and officials
thereof classified as SG27 and higher
C. Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution
D. Chairmen and members of
Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution
E. Other national and local officials
classified as SG27 and higher
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
2. Other offenses or felonies whether simple
or complexed with other crimes committed by
the public officials and employees mentioned
in (1)
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to
and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A
issued in 1986
4. Violations of RA9160 (AMLA) when
committed by public officers and private
persons who are in conspiracy with such
public officers.
 Those enumerated are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
REGARDLESS of salary grade. If not
specifically enumerated, SG matters to
determine whether under the jurisdiction
of SB.
 Rule: NO SPLIT JURISDICTION in cases
of private individuals in conspiracy with
public officers aforementioned
Original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SB
over recovery and sequestration of ill-gotten
wealth of the Marcoses and associates under
EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A
EO 1 – refers to cases of recovery and
sequestration of ill-gotten wealth amassed by
the Marcoses, their relatives, subordinates, and
close associates, directly or through nominees,
by taking undue advantage of their public
office and/or by using their powers, authority,
influence, connections, or relationships.
EO 2 – states that all ill-gotten wealth includes
assets and properties in the form of estates and
real properties in the Philippines and abroad.
EO 14 & 14-A – pertain to the
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over criminal and
civil cases relative to the ill-gotten wealth of
the Marcoses and their cronies.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v
Sandoval:
Although the Republic has not imputed any
responsibility to Asian Bank for the illegal
accumulation of wealth by the original
defendants, or has not averred that Asian Bank
was a business associate, dummy, nominee, or
agent of the Marcoses, the allegation in its
amended complaint in Civil Case No. 0004
that Asian Bank acted with bad faith for
ignoring the sequestration of the properties as
ill-gotten wealth has made the cause of action
against Asian Bank incidental or necessarily
connected to the cause of action against
original defendants.
PCGG v Sandiganbayan:
The Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive
jurisdiction not only over principal causes of
action involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth
but also over all incidents arising from,
incidental to, or related to such cases.
What is the effect if there is no specific
allegation showing that the offense was
committed in relation to public office?
The original jurisdiction shall fall in the
proper MTC/RTC. (Tan)
“in relation to office”
1. in performance of official functions
2. the offense cannot exist without the office
3. authority/office is an element of crime
committed
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
What to consider to determine jurisdiction of
SB: (1) position of the accused
(2) nature of the crime committed
 Even if the position is not an essential
ingredient of the offense charged, the
Information/complaint must aver that the
offense is intimately connected with the
office and that it is perpetrated while in
performance of official functions because
the factor that characterizes the charge is
the actual recital of facts in the complaint
or information
 The phrase “in relation to official duties”
in the Information is not what determines
the jurisdiction. What is controlling is the
specific factual allegations in the
Information. The phrase is merely a
conclusion of law, not a factual averment
that would show close intimacy between
the offense charged and discharge of
accused’s official office.
RA1379 – involves forfeiture cases arising out
of a cause of action separate and different from
a plunder case. Preponderance of evidence is
required which is proven by disproportion of
respondent’s properties to his legitimate
income.
II. Appellate Jurisdiction
Decisions and final orders of RTCs in the
exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction under PD1606, as amended, shall
be appealable to the Sandiganbayan in the
manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules of
Court
Ancillary writs and processes in aid of
appellate jurisdiction
Ancillary writ- exists only as part of an
independent action; remedy invoked in aid of
collection of plaintiff’s demand in action.
- mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunction, quo warranto PROVIDED:
the jurisdiction is not exclusive of Supreme
Court or that the quo warranto is filed under
EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A
III. Original/concurrent jurisdiction
1. Concurrent with SC and CA
- Petitons for issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and
injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction, including quo
warranto arising in cases falling under EO 1, 2,
14, 14-A
- Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo
(sec.3 AM no 07-9-12-SC)
- Over petition for habeas data (sec.3 AM No.
08-1-16 SC)
2. Concurrent with SC, CA and RTC
- Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of
habeas data when action concerns public data
files of government offices (sec.3 AM No. 07-
9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo)
- Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus, relating to an act or omission of a
Municipal Trial Court, corporation, board,
officer, or person (Sec. 4 Rule 65 as amended
by AM No. 07-7-12-SC)
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
I. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
- over all criminal offenses arising from
violations of the National Internal Revenue
Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other
laws administered by the BIR or BoC:
PROVIDED, however that..
1. offenses or felonies mentioned in this
paragraph where the principal amount of taxes
and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is less than P1M; OR
2. where there is no specified amount claimed
shall be tried by the regular courts and the
jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate.
 Any provision of law or the Rules of
Court contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding
civil action for recovery of civil
liability for taxes and penalties shall at
all times be simultaneously instituted
with, and jointly determined in the
same proceeding by the CTA, 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
will be recognized
II. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
Rule IV of the Revised Rules of the Court of
Tax Appeals (AM No. 05-11-07 CTA)
Sec 1 : The Court shall exercise the exclusive
original jurisdiction over OR appellate
jurisdiction to review by appeal the cases
specified in RA 1125 Sec 7, as amended by
RA9282 Sec 7
Sec 2: The CTA en banc shall have exclusive
appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the
following:
1. Decisions or resolutions on MFR or new
trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise
of its EAJ over:
a. cases arising from administrative
agencies – BIR, BoC, DoF, DTI, DA
b. local tax cases decided by the RTC in
the exercise of their OJ
c. tax collection cases decided by the
RTCs in the exercise of their OJ involving
final and executory assessments of taxes,
fees, and charges and penalties, where the
principal amount of taxes and penalties
claimed is less than one million pesos.
2. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of the RTC
in local tax cases decided or resolved by them
in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction
3. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of the RTC
in tax collection cases decided or resolved by
them in the exercise of their appellate
jurisdiction
4. Decisions, resolutions, or orders on MFR or
new trial of the Court in Division in the
exercise of its EOJ over tax collection cases
5. Decisions of the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in the exercise of
its AJ over cases involving assessment and
taxation of real property originally decided by
the provincial or city board assessment appeals
6. Decisions, resolutions, or orders on MFR or
new trial of the Court in Division in the
exercise of its EOJ over cases involving
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
criminal cases arising from violations of
NIRC/TCC and other laws administered by the
BIR/BoC
7. Decisions, resolutions, or orders on MFR or
new trial of the Court in Division in the
exercise of its EAJ over criminal offenses
mentioned in the proceeding subparagraph
8. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of the RTC
in the exercise of their AJ over criminal
offenses mentioned in subpar (f).
COURT OF APPEALS
Nature: It is primarily designed as an appellate
court that reviews the determination of facts
and law made by the trial courts. It is
collegiate in nature. This nature ensures
standpoints in the review of the actions of the
trial court. But the CA also has original
jurisdiction over most special civil actions.
Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a
nationwide scope. It is competent to
determine facts and ideally, should act on
constitutional issues that may not necessarily
be novel unless there are factual questions to
determine. (The Diocese of Bacolod v
Comelec)
I. Original Jurisdiction
Sec 9 BP 129: mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto,
and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or
not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
AM No. 07-9-12-SC : Writ of Amparo
AM No. 08-1-16-SC : Habeas data
Sec 4 AM 05-11-04-SC : Petition for freeze
order on any monetary instrument, property,
or proceeds relating to or involving any
unlawful activity as defined under Sec 3(j) of
RA9160 as amended by RA9194
II. Concurrent Jurisdiction
 With SC, SB, RTC over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, injunction, habeas corpus,
amparo, and data.
Constancio F. Mendoza and Sangguniang
Brgy. of Balatasan, Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro, GR No. 187256:
Such concurrence does not give the petitioner
unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum;
A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy
most certainly indicates that petitions for the
issuance of extraordinary writs against first
level courts should be filed with the RTC and
those against the latter with the CA; A direct
invocation of the original jurisdiction to issue
those writs should be allowed only when there
are special and important reasons therefore;
clearly and specially set out in the petition.
III. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. By ordinary appeal
 Decision and final order by the RTC in
the exercise of its OJ, except those
appealable to SC/SB/CTA
Procedural Basis: Sec3(a) RRCP provides for
the mode of appeal from RTC to CA:
A. By filing a notice of appeal with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from; AND
B by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party.
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
2. By petition for review
 Decisions and final orders rendered by
the RTC in the exercise of its AJ can be
appealed to CA by petition for Review
under Rule 122 in relation to Rule 42
of the Rules of Court
Procedural basis: Sec3(b) Rule 122 RRCP
provides for the mode of appeal from RTC in
exercise of its AJ to CA – shall be by petition
for review under Rule 42.
3. Automatic review of the decision of the
RTC when the penalty imposed is death, RP,
or life imprisonment
People v Val Delos Reyes: With the Court’s
pronouncement in the 2004 case of People v
Mateo, providing for and making mandatory
the intermediate review by the CA of cases
involving the DP, RP, LI, the proper course of
action would be to remand these cases to the
appellate court for the conduct of an
intermediate review.
IV. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
Sec 9 (3) of BP129 : CA shall exercise EAJ over
all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of :
1. RTCs
2. Quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or commissions, including Securities
and Exchange Commission, Social Security
Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission, and the Civil Service
Commission, except those falling within the
AJ of the SC in accordance with the
Constitution, Labor Code, the provisions of
BP129 and subpar(1) of 3rd par and subpar(4)
of 4th par of Judiciary Act of 1948
SUPREME COURT
I. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
 Over cases affecting ambassadors, public
ministers, and consuls
 Over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
(Sec.5 par 1 Art VIII of the 1987
Constitution)
II. Concurrent Jurisdiction
 With CA, SB and RTC: petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
habeas corpus, amparo, and data.
Limitation:
Despite concurrence, it does not give
petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum. The rationale is two-fold:
1. It would be an imposition upon the precious
time of the Court
2. It would cause an inevitable and resultant
delay, intended or otherwise, in the
adjudication of the case, which in some
instances had to be remanded or referred to
the lower court as the proper forum under the
rules of procedure, or as better equipped to
resolve the issues because the SC is not a trier
of facts (CREBA v Sec of Agrarian Reform)
III. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Cases falling under AJ of SC
 By way of petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to
Rule 125 of the RRCP:
A. Decision, final order or resolution
by the CA (under Rule 45)
Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga
Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017
B. Decisions, resolutions, or orders by
the Sandiganbayan (under PD1606 as
amended by RA 7975 and RA8249)
C. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of
the CTA en banc (pursuant to Sec11 of
RA9282 in relation to Rule 45)
D. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of
the RTCs on purely question of law
E. Decision of the Shari’ah Appellate
Courts
F. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of
CA, SB, and RTC in petition for writ of
amparo filed in a pending criminal
case
G. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of
CA, SB and RTC in a petition for
habeas data filed in a pending criminal
case
2. Constitutional basis on the exercise of the
SC of its AJ to review decisions of lower courts
Par 2 Sec 5 Art VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:
A. All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question
B. All cases involving the legality of tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
C. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue.

D. All criminal cases in which the penalty

imposed is RP or higher

E. All cases in which only an error or question

of law is involved

3. Procedural basis
 by way of petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
 the petition shall only raise a question
of law

Question of law – exists when there is doubt

or controversy as to what law is on a certain
state of facts.

Question of fact – exists when the doubt or

controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts. The resolution of a question
of fact necessarily involves a calibration of the
evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the
existence and the relevance of surrounding
circumstances, and the probability of specific
situations (Cabaron v People)

JURISDICTION OF GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES, TRIBUNALS, AND ENTITIES
PERFORMING PROSECUTORY AND/OR
INVESTIGATIVE POWERS INVOLVING
VIOLATION OF PENAL STATUTE

I. Office of the Ombudsman

Notes on Criminal Procedure under Atty. Senga

Intellectual Property of Mikkaela Mones, 2C AY 2016-2017