Download Criminal Procedure by Herrera and more Lecture notes Criminal procedure in PDF only on Docsity!
PRELIMINARY CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of any criminal offense, and for their punishment, in case of conviction. Criminal procedure is concerned with the procedural steps through which a criminal case passes, commencing with the initial investigation of a crime and concluding with the unconditional release of the offender. It is a generic term used to describe the network of laws and rules which govern the procedural administration of criminal justice, e.g., laws and court rules (e.g.. Rules of Criminal Procedure) governing arrest, search and seizure, bail, etc. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- The Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure. 2. General Orders No. 58, dated April 23, 1900.
- Amendatory Acts passed by the Philippine Commission.
- The various quasi acts, the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Jones Law of 1916, the Tydings-McDuffie Law and the Constitution of the Philippines.
- The Rules of Court of 1940 and the 1964, 1985 and 1988 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- Various Republic Acts, e.g., R.A. No. 240; New Rule 127, providing for attachment; R.A. No. 296, Judiciary Act of 1948 denning criminal jurisdiction, and B.P. Big. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691; R.A. No. 8249, Creating the Sandiganbayan; R.A. No. 8349, The Speedy Trial Act of
- Presidential Decrees, e.g., P.D. No. 911; R.A. No. 732, regu- lating the authority of Prosecuting Fiscals to Conduct Preliminary Investigation.
- Constitution — Rights of an Accused under Article III.
- The Civil Code. (Arts. 32, 33 and 34)
- Judicial decisions applying or interpreting our laws which form part of our legal system.
- R.A. No. 8493, The Speedy Trial Act of 1998.
- Circulars.
- The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. THREE SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1. Inquisitorial. — The detection and prosecution of offenders are not left to the initiative of private parties but to the officials and agents of the law. Resort is made to secret inquiry to discover the culprit and violence and torture were often employed to extract a confession. The Judge was not limited to the evidence brought before him but could proceed with his own inquiry which was not confrontative. 2. Accusatorial. — The accusation is exercised by every citizen or by a member of the group to which the injured party belongs. As the action is a combat between the parties, the supposed offender has the right to be confronted by his accuser. The battle in the form of a public trial is judged by a magistrate who renders the verdict. 3. The Mixed System. — This is a combination of the inquisitorial and the accusatorial systems. Thus, the examination of defendants and other persons before the filing of the complaint or information may be inquisitorial. This is particularly true in the Preliminary examination, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a criminal action may be instituted by complaint of the offended party or by information filed by the Fiscal and once the criminal action is filed in court, the accused has the right to confront and cross-examine his accuser. It has, however, been held that: "As a general rule, a court proceeding in our judicial set-up is accusatorial or adversary and not inquisitorial in nature. It contem- plates two contending parties before the court which hears them impartially and renders judgment only after trial."^4 IMPORTANCE OF DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL CASES "All trial courts, the Sandiganbayan included, are reminded that they should take all the necessary measures guaranteeing procedural due process from the inception of custodial investigation up to rendition of judgment. They are not to turn a blind eye to procedural irregularities which transpired before the criminal case reached the court. The validity and sufficiency of the information are important." "Criminal due process requires that the accused must be proceeded against under the orderly processes of law. In all criminal cases, the judge should follow the step-by-step procedure required by the rules. The reason for this is to assure that the State makes no mistake in taking the life or liberty except that of the guilty." CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS "CRIMINAL JURISDICTION" is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by: (1) the geographical limits of the territory over which it presides, and (2) the actions (civil and criminal), it is empowered to hear and decide. ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES The elements of jurisdiction of a trial court over the subject matter in a criminal case are: a. The nature of the offense and/or penalty attached thereto; and b. The fact that the offense has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The non-concurrence of either of these two elements may be challenged by an accused at any stage of the proceedings in the court below or on appeal. Failing in one of them, a judgment of conviction is null and void. REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Three important requisites must be present before a court can validly exercise its power to hear and try a case: a. It must have jurisdiction over the subject matter; b. It must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed; c. It must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong.^8 JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW The Philippine Courts have no common law jurisdiction or power, but only those expressly conferred by the Constitution and statutes and those necessarily implied to make the express powers effective. STATUTE IN FORCE AT COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS DETERMINES JURISDICTION Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action and not at the time of its commission even if the penalty that may be imposed at the time of its commission is less and does not fall under the court's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by-law. It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of the parties. In determining whether a case lies within or outside the jurisdiction of a court, reference to the applicable statute on the matter is indispensable. It is a settled rule that jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of commencement of action. The principle, however, is different, where jurisdiction is dependent on the nature of the position of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense. In Subido v. Sandiganbayan, jurisdiction was determined by the position of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense. The crime of arbitrary detention was allegedly committed on June 25, 1992 when accused was a Commissioner of the BID. R.A. No. 7975 took effect on May 6,1995 vesting the Sandiganbayan with exclusive jurisdiction for crimes committed by public officers corresponding to Grade
The information was filed on 28 July 1995 when accused was already a private citizen. He claimed that under the law at the time of the commencement of the action, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him for the offense charged. HELD: Republic Act No. 7975 (amended by R.A. No. 8249) as regards the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, mode of appeal and other proce- dural matters, was held as a procedural law and may validly be given retroactive effect, there being no impairment of contractual or vested rights. It was held that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over an anti-graft case allegedly committed by public officers who at the time of the filing of the information falls below Grade 27. JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT The averments in the complaint or information characterizes the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried. In order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for by law for such facts fall within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information and not by the findings the court may make after the trial. PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION a. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by: (1) the geographical limits of the territory over which it presides, and (2) the action (civil and criminal) it is empowered to hear and decide. b. As the question of jurisdiction is always of importance, if the prosecution fails to prove that fact, the court may always permit it to present additional evidence to show the fact that the crime was committed within its jurisdiction. c. The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case. When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. d. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is fatal and an objection based upon this ground may be interposed at any stage of the proceedings. Jurisdiction is conferred only by the sovereign authority which organizes the courts. When jurisdiction over an offense has not been conferred by law, the accused cannot confer it by express waiver or otherwise. Jurisdiction over criminal cases cannot be conferred by consent. Even if a party fails to file a motion to quash, he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. Moreover, these objections may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. e. If under the law the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, it cannot take cognizance of the case, notwithstanding the silence or acquiescence of the accused. The exception is when there is estoppel by laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction. f. Estoppel by Laches to Question Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases Generally, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply as against the people in criminal prosecutions. The principle, however, earlier laid down in the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy^2 '' which bars a party from attacking the jurisdiction of the court by reason of estoppel by laches have been extended to criminal cases. See, however, Fuzume v. Court of'Appeals, holding that accused or the court may motu proprio raise lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case for the first time on Appeal. Immunity from suit is a jurisdictional question. g. Principle that there is no estoppel against State The settled rule is that the State is not estopped by the mistakes of its officers and employees. Indeed, in Cruz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, the Court declared:
... Estoppel does not lie against the government because of the supposedly mistaken acts or omissions of its agents. As we declared in People v. Castaneda, "there is the long familiar rule that erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers do not block subsequent correct application of the statute and that the government is never estopped by mistake or error on the part of its agents." The Court also held in Chua v. Court of Appeals: ... While ordinarily, certiorari is unavailing where the appeal period has lapsed, there are exceptions. Among them are:
If the facts recited in the complaint and the punishment provided for by law are sufficient to show that the court in which the complaint is presented has jurisdiction, that court must assume jurisdiction The same rule was set forth and amplified in People v. Buissan in the following terms: xxx [i]n criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trialor even by the result of the evidence that would be presented during the trial but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes, together with other legal obligations, on the basis of the facts as recited in the complaint or information constitutive of the offense charged, for once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the information is filed, it is retained regardless of whether or not the evidence proves a lesser offense than that charged in the information. Thus, it may be that after trial, a penalty lesser than the maximum imposable under the statute is proper under the specific facts and circumstances proven at the trial. In such a case, that lesser penalty may be imposed by the trial court (provided it has subject-matter jurisdiction under the rule above referred to) even if the reduced penalty otherwise falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. In criminal proceedings, the rule is that one can not be held to answer for any crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it was committed. Said rule is- based on the legal provision which prescribes the essential requisites of a good complaint or information, one of which is the allegation that the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint or information is filed and that said court has authority to try it. As was said in the case of United States v. Cunanan, the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance of the Philippine Islands, in criminal cases is limited to certain well-defined territory, so that they can not take jurisdiction of persons charged with an offense alleged to have been committed outside of that limited territory. Jurisdiction of the Courts in criminal cases rests upon a different footing from that in civil cases. In criminal cases, the people of the State is a party. The interests of the public require that, to secure the best results and effects in the punishment of crime, it is necessary to prosecute and punish the criminal in the very place, as near as may be, where he committed his crime. As a result, it has been the uniform legislation, both in statutes and in constitution, that the venue of a criminal action must be laid in the place where the crime was committed. While the laws here do not specifically and in terms require it, it is the established custom and the uniform holding that criminal prosecutions must be brought and conducted, except in cases especially provided by law, in the province where the crime is committed. Judicial divisions or districts (now regions) are always fixed by law so that any changes or alterations of the same can only be effected by express legislation and not by mere inference or deduction. Proceedings in a criminal case before a judge acting without jurisdiction are void, but this fact will not preclude the filing of a new complaint upon the dismissal of the former proceeding. WHEN PLACE OF CRIME NOT ALLEGED Where the place of the commission of the offense was not specifically charged, the place may be shown by the evidence. Thus, the insufficiency of the complaint charging adultery without stating the place where the acts of adultery were committed, or that the accused knew the woman was married at the time of cohabitation, assigned as error as the conviction thereon amounted to a conviction without informing the defendants of the nature and character of the offense, and besides equivalent to a conviction without due process of law. No such question having been raised before final judgment in the trial court, but every ingredient of the crime having been established in the evidence, there was no error committed upon which to base a reversal of conviction. ACTION BY COURT WHERE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION When the record discloses that the crime as alleged in the complaint was not committed in the province wherein the trial was had, and the accused was not arrested in that province and defendant had not fled therefrom, the Court of First Instance of that province has no jurisdiction to impose sentence. In such cases, if the court has reasonable ground to believe that the crime has been committed, the accused should be remanded to the court of proper jurisdiction for trial. It has been held that where the court has no jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the complaint, instead of ordering the transfer, the court should dismiss the case. However, in Republic v. Asuncion, and Cunanan v. Arcco, the Court sanctioned the transfer of the cases from the RTC for lack of jurisdiction to the Sandiganbayan, while in Lacson v. The Executive Secretary, the Court (en bane) ordered the transfer of the cases from the Sandiganbayan for lack of jurisdiction to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which has exclusive original jurisdiction over said cases. In Cuyco u. Sandiganbayan, the court ordered the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, but informed the Ombudsman that it may re-file the cases with the court of proper jurisdiction, the RTC of Zamboanga City. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Davide, Jr., asked to REFER the case to the RTC instead of dismissing the cases. It is believed that under its supervisory authority, the Supreme Court and even the Court of Appeals may properly refer the case to the court of proper jurisdiction. Courts of the first and second level is without authority to order the transfer. If the said courts believe that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, its jurisdiction is limited to simply dismissing the case.
JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN
CRIMINAL CASES
Republic Act No. 7691 which took effect on April 15, 1994 amended B.P. Big. 129, otherwise known as "The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980" by Expanding the Jurisdiction of the aforementioned courts as follows: Exclusive Original Jurisdiction xxx SEC. 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. — Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court 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 involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof." Interpreting the foregoing law, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular 09-94 as follows: Subject: Guidelines in the implementation of Republic Act No. 7691, Entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending For the Purpose Batas Pambansa Big. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980." For the guidance of the Bench and the Bar, the following guidelines are to be followed in the implementation of Republic Act No. 7691, entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Big. 129, otherwise known as the 'Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980'": (3) The criminal jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts under Section 32(2) ofB.P. Big. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, has been increased to cover offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of the fine. As a consequence, the Regional Trial Courts have no more original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, where the offense is punishable by more than four (4) years and two (2) months up to six (6) years. (4) The provisions of Section 32(2) of B.P. Big. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, apply only to offenses punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both, in which cases the amount of the fine is disregarded in determining the jurisdiction of the court. However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the amount thereof shall determine the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with the original provisions of Section 32(2) of B.P. Big. 129 which fixed the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over offenses punishable with a fine of not more than Four thousand pesos. If the amount of the fine exceeds Four thousand pesos, the Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction, including offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, where the amount of the fine does not exceed Six thousand pesos. However, this rule does not apply to offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence which are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine." The opening Paragraph of Section 32 excepts cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan — from the expanded jurisdiction of the aforementioned courts even if the offense is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years. In other words, where jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the offense and not by the penalty, jurisdiction should remain in the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan. For example:
- Libel is punishable by prision corrreccional in its minimum and maximum period or fine or bail. (Article 354, R.P.C.) Article 360, however, of the same code as amended, provides that the criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation shall be filed in the Court of First Instance, etc."
- Jurisdiction over Election Offenses SEC. 268. Jurisdiction of courts. — The regional trial court shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this Code, except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts. From the decision of the courts, appeal will lie as in other criminal cases.
- ARTICLE X — Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drugs Cases SEC. 39. Jurisdiction. — The Court of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Court, and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction over all cases involving offenses punishable under this Act: Provided, That in cities or provinces where there are .Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, the said courts shall take exclusive cognizance of cases where the offenders are under sixteen years of age.
- Cases which falls under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan regardless of the imposable penalty. Thus, the aforementioned exception refers not only to Section 20 ofB.P. Big. 129 providing for the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases, but also to other laws which specifically lodged in Regional Trial Courts' exclusive jurisdiction over specific criminal cases, e.g., (a) Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. Nos. 1289 and 4363 on written defamation or libel; (b) Decree on Intellectual Property (P.D. No. 49, as amended), which vests upon Courts of First Instance exclusive jurisdiction over the cases therein mentioned regardless of the imposable penalty; and (c) more appropriately, Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by P.D. No. 44, which vests on Courts of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Courts, and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts concurrent exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases involving violations of said Act.
- Cases which fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts under Republic Act No. 8369 known as the Family Courts Act of 1997.
government-owned or -controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations; "(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade '2' and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; "(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; "(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and "(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. "b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office. "c. Civil and criminal case filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in
“In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Big. 129, as amended. "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. "The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14- A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. "In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees including those employed in government-owned or -controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them." CONSEQUENCE OF AMENDMENTS As a consequence of these amendments, the Sandiganbayan partly lost its exclusive original jurisdiction in cases involving: a. Violations of R.A. No. 3019; b. R.A. No. 1379; and c. Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. (Article 210, Direct Bribery; Article 211, Indirect Bribery; andArticle 212, Corruption of Public Officials). The Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction only in cases where the accused are those enumerated in subsection (a) Section 4 above and, generally, national and local officials classified as Grade "27" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. Moreover, its jurisdiction over other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office is no longer determined by the prescribed penalty, viz., that which is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years or a fine ofP6,000.00; it is enough that they are committed by those public officials and employees enumerated in subsection a, Section 4 above. However, it retains its exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to or in connection with E.O. No. I. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN OVER PUBLIC OFFICERS Prior to the amendment (R.A. No. 7975), jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for felonies other than violation of R.A. No. 3019 as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, embrace all other offenses provided, the offense was committed in relation to public office and the prescribed penalty is more than six years. Under the present law, both the nature of the offense and the positions occupied by the accused are the conditions sine qua non before the Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance of the case. DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION Republic Act No. 8249 collated the provisions on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Its original jurisdiction as a trial court was made to depend not on the penalty imposed by the law on crimes and offenses within its jurisdiction but on the rank and salary grade of the acused government officials and employees. To determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of Rep. Act No. 3019, the reckoning period is the time of the commission if the offense. Includes officials specifically mentioned even if below Grade 27 The specific inclusion of the officials from (a) to (g) constitutes an exception to the general qualification relating to officials of the executive branch as "occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989. In other words, violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 committed by officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) regardless of their salary grade. All other officials below grade 27 shall be under the jurisdiction of the proper trial courts. PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT FALL WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN IN CASES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF REP. ACT NO. 3019 AND CHAPTER II, SECTION 2, TITLE VII OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE — BRIBERY (ART. 210), INDIRECT BRIBERY (ART. 211) AND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS (ART. 212) Rep. Act No. 7975 has grouped them into five categories, to wit: (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher; (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade "27" and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution; (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes and felonies under the first classification: "a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over those public officers holding positions classified as Grade 27 refers to Violations ofR.A. No. 3019, Act No. 1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code referring to Malfeasance and Misfeasance in office (1) Art. 204, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment; (2) Art. 205, Judgment rendered thru negligence; (3) Art. 206, Unjust Interlocutory Order; (4) Art. 207, Malicious Delay in the administration of justice; (5) Art. 208, Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance; (6) Art. 209, Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor — Revelation of secrets; (7) Art. 210, Direct Bribery; (8) Art. 211, Indirect Bribery; (9) Art. 211-A, Qualified Bribery; (10)Art. 212, Corruption of public officials. which does not include the crime of Rebellion or coup d'etat. With respect to other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office. In other words, the case would fall under the Sandiganbayan if the crime is committed "in relation to public office except the crimes of rebellion and coup d'etat. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction even if Co-Accused in Malversation below Grade 27 Two of the felonies that belong to the first classification are malversation defined and penalized by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, and the illegal use of public funds or property defined and penalized by Article 220 of the same Code. The public office of the accused Municipal Mayor Virginio E. Villamor is a constituent element of malversation and illegal use of public funds or property. Accused mayor's position is classified as SG 27. Since the Amended Informations alleged that the petitioner conspired with her co-accused, the municipal mayor, in committing the said felonies, the fact that her position as municipal accountant is classified as SG 24 and as such is not an accountable officer is of no moment; the Sandiganbayan still has exclusive original jurisdiction over the cases lodged against her. It must be stressed that a public officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of her official position, or even a private individual, may be liable for malversation or illegal use of public funds or property if such public officer or private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to commit malversation or illegal use of public funds or property. The determinative fact is that the position of her co-accused, the municipal mayor, is classified as SG 27, and under the last paragraph of Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, if the position of one of the principal accused is classified as SG 27, the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense. WHEN IS AN OFFENSE DEEMED COMMITTED IN RELATION TO PUBLIC OFFICE The office must be a constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute. The test is whether the offense cannot exist without the office. DETERMINATION OF WHEN CRIME IS IN RELATION TO PUBLIC OFFICE How to Determine whether information sufficiently alleges that the crime was committed in relation to public office There are two ways of determining whether or not the infor- mation charges that the offense was committed in relation to public office. The statement that the "committed in relation to public office" is not sufficient. a. Where the public office of the accused is by statute a constituent element of the crime charged, there is no need for the Prosecutor to state in the Information specific factual allegations of the intimacy between the office and the crime charged, or that the accused committed the crime in the performance of his duties. Thus, the public office of the accused Municipal Mayor Virginio E. Villamor is a constituent element of malversation and illegal use of public funds or property. b. When specific factual allegations of crime committed in relation to public office required These are offenses or felonies which are intimately connected with the public office and are perpetrated by the public officer or employee while in the performance of his official functions, through improper or irregular conduct. Where the office is not a constituent element of the offense charged there must be specific allegation of facts that it was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties. The Sandiganbayan likewise has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes or felonies committed by the public officers and employees enumerated in Section (a)(l) to (5) under the second classification if the Information contains specific factual allegations showing the intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office of the accused, and the discharge of his official duties or functions — whether improper or irregular. The requirement is not complied with if the Information merely alleges that the accused committed the crime charged in relation to his office because such allegation is merely a conclusion of law. In the absence of any allegation that the offense was committed in relation to the office of the accused or was necessarily connected with the discharge of their functions, the regional court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Thus, for jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers in relation to public office to fall within jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan — the intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the information. There must be specific factual averments of this relation, except when the office is a constituent element of the offense charged.
While public office is not an element of the crime of lasciviousness — he could not have committed the crime charged were it not for the fact that as Presiding Judge of the MTCC branch, he has authority to recommend her appointment as bookbinder. The crime committed as alleged in the amended information are intimately connected with his office. A mere allegation that the crime was committed in relation to public office is not what determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the specific factual allegation in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accuser's official duties and the commission of the of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.
- Where the killing committed by a PNP officer was committed while in the course of trying to restore local public order which had been breached by a fistfight between the victim and two other individuals, the killing was committed in relation to the accused's public office.
- Where the amended information contained allegations that the accused, petitioner took advantage of his official functions as municipal mayor ofMeycauayan, Bulacan when he committed the crime of grave threats as defined in Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code against complainant Simeon G. Legaspi, a municipal councilor; and. The Office of the Special Prosecutor charged petitioner with aiming a gun at and threatening to kill Legaspi during a public hearing, after the latter had rendered a privilege speech critical of petitioner's administration. Clearly, based on such allegations, the crime charged is intimately connected with the discharge of petitioner's official functions. If he was not the mayor, he would not have been irritated or angered by whatever private complainant might have said during said privilege speech." Thus, based on the allegations in the information, the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case.
- The same principles were stressed in Soller v. Sandiganbayan, where the Municipal Mayor and others were charged in the Sandiganbayan with Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses as denned and penalized under P.D. No. 1829 for tampering with the autopsy and police reports to mislead the investigation of the fatal shootout of the victim. But aside from noting the absence of specific factual allegations, that the offense was committed in relation to public office, the court found that the preparation of police and autopsy reports and the presentation and gathering of evidence in the investigation of criminal cases are not among the duties and functions and the broad responsibility to maintain peace and order cannot be basis for construing that that the criminal acts imputed to the mayor. Of tampering and falsifying the autopsy reports, were committed in relation to his office.
- Where the Informations allege that petitioner, then a "public officer," committed the crimes of murder and frustrated murder "in relation to his office," i.e., as "Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer" of the DENR. It is apparent from this allegation that the offenses charged are intimately connected with petitioner's office and were perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. In its Resolution dated August 25,1992, the Sandiganbayan held that petitioner was "on duty up in order to prevent incursions into the forest and wooded area," and that petitioner, as a guard, was "precisely furnished with a firearm in order to resist entry by force or intimidation." Indeed, if petitioner was not on duty at the DENR checkpoint on January 14, 1990, he would not have had the bloody encounter with Mayor Cortez and his men. Thus, based on the allegations in the Informations, the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the cases. JURISDICTION NOT DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS EXPLAINED In Republic u. Asuncion, the Court stressed that the foregoing requisites must be alleged in the information for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction. It was, however, held in one case that under Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, when the penalty prescribed by law is higher than Prision Correccional, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, without stating that the offense was committed in relation to the offender's office. This was a mistake that misled the prosecution in subsequent cases. Thus, in Republic v. Asuncion, the information did not disclose that the offense of homicide charged against the accused who was a member of the PNP was committed in relation to the office of the accused, but the trial court, during the progress of the trial dismissed the case without prejudice for refiling in the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court en bane speaking thru Justice Davide, Jr., surmised that the absence of an allegation that the crime was committed "in relation to his office" was because of the erroneous doctrine in Deloso u. Domingo which conveyed the impression that this was not necessary. Hence, the court a quo was directed to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether the crime charged was committed by the respondents in relation to his office. If it be determined in the affirmative, then it shall order the transfer of the case to the Sandiganbayan which shall forthwith docket and proceed with the case as if the same were originally filed with it. Otherwise, the court a quo shall proceed with the case. In Cunanan u. Arceo, the information for murder against a PNP contained no averment that the offense charged was in relation to his public office, hence, the court proceeded to trial and after ooth parties have presented their evidence declared the case submitted for decision. The trial court applied Republic v. Asuncion, and conducted a hearing solely to ascertain if accused had committed the offense charged in relation to his office, and found that he did. The trial court accordingly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction for refiling with the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the "Asuncion Ruling." In a further order, the trial judge modified the dismissal by ordering instead the transfer of the case to the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court speaking thru the Third Division did not consider the absence of an allegation in the information that the offense was committed in relation to his office. The Court stated:
It is firmly settled that jurisdiction over the offense charged is a matter that is conferred by law. Whenever the above two (2) requisites are present, jurisdiction over the offense is vested in the Sandiganbayan. This is true even though the information originally Sled before the RTC did not aver that the accused public officer public had committed the offense charged in relation to his office. In other words, the absence in the old information filed before the RTC af an allegation that petitioner Cunanan has committed the offense in relation to his office is immaterial insofar as determination of the locus of jurisdiction is concerned. Indeed, it may be recalled that bhe Asuncion ruling involved a situation where the information similarly did not contain an averment that the accused public officer had committed the offense charged while carrying out his official duties. It was precisely to address the situation that the Supreme Court in Asuncion fashioned the rule directing the conduct of a preliminary ar separate hearing by a trial court to determine the presence or absence of that jurisdictional element. The RTC's initial assumption of jurisdiction over the offense charged in this case did not, therefore, prevent it from subsequently declaring itself to be without jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction having become apparent from subsequent proceedings in that case. JURISDICTION MUST BE DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT The foregoing pronouncements is not in accord with the well- settled rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint and not by the finding of the court after trial. The A suncion case did not hold that the absence of an allegation of the offense having been committed "in relation to his office" as immaterial, but justified the absence thereof as having been caused by the erroneous ruling in the case of Deloso v. Domingo. The court did not fashion the rule directing the conduct of a preliminary or separate hearing to determine the absence or presence of that jurisdictional element. It did so only because of the peculiar circumstance that the omission may have been due to inadvertence in view of the misleading pronouncement in Deloso. Asuncion has not, however, departed from the rule that jurisdiction is to be determined by the allegations of the complaint. On the contrary, Asuncion stressed that the public officers or employees committed the crime in relation to their office must, however be alleged in the information for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over a case under Section 4(a)(2). This allegation is necessary because of the unbending rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the information. In the subsequent case of People v. Magallanes, where the accused were charged with kidnapping for ransom with murder wherein some of the accused were members of the PNP, the information does not indicate that the accused arrested and investigated the victims and then killed the latter in the course of the investigation. The informations merely alleged that the accused, for the purpose of extracting and extorting money, abducted, kidnapped and detained the two victims, and failing in their common purpose, they shot and killed the said victims. The Supreme Court thru the First Division speaking thru Justice Davide, Jr., also the ponente in the Asuncion case stated: "For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is these allegations that shall control, and not the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial." (Italics Supplied) The court held that the allegations of "taking advantage of his position or their respective positions" incorporated in the informations is not sufficient to bring the offenses within the definition of "offenses commited in relation to public office." In Montilla u. Hilario, such an allegation was merely considered as an allegation of an aggravating circumstance and not as one that qualifies the crime as having been committed in relation to public office. Also, in Bartolome u. People of the Philippines, despite the allegations that the accused public official committed the crime of falsification of official document by "taking advantage of their official positions," the court held that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case, because "the information (did) not allege that there was an intimate connection between the discharge of official duties and the commissison of the offense." Accordingly, for lack of an allegation in the informations that the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused. PNP officer or were intimately connected with the discharge of the functions of the accused, the subject cases come within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not of the Sandiganbayan. This was also the ruling in Lacson v. Executive Secretary. It should, however, be noted that under Republic Act No. 7975, jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office is no longer determined by the prescribed penalty. It is enough that theyare committed by those public officials and employees enumerated in subsection a, Section 4, R.A. No.
It is when the erring public official is not among the enumerated functionaries, that jurisdiction by courts other than the Sandiganbayan is to be determined by the penalty prescribed by law. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN OVER a. PCGG Under Section 2 of Executive Order No. 14, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all cases regarding the "funds, moneys, assets and properties illegally acquired by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos x x x civil or criminal, including incidents arising from such cases. The decision of the Sandiganbayan is subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court." In the exercise of its functions, the PCGG is a co-equal body with the Regional Trial Courts and co-equal bodies have no power to control the other. The Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals have no jurisdiction over the PCGG in the exercise of its powers under the applicable Executive Orders and Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution and, therefore, may not interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders and actions of the PCGG acting for and in behalf of said Commission. b. Exclusive Jurisdiction over Cases Filed by PCGG The exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over civil and criminal cases filed by PCGG, as well as incidents arising from, incidental or related to such cases is subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court. The fact of sequestration alone does not, however, automatically oust the RTC of jurisdiction to decide upon the question of ownership (of the subject gaming and office equipment of the Philippine Casino Operators Corporation).
of the commission of the offense. It is a civil procreedings in rem but criminal in nature JURISDICTION OVER MONEY LAUNDERING CASES The Anti money-laundering law provides for two kinds of cases which are independent of each other. The criminal action for anti-money — laundering offense (Sec. 4) and the civil forfeiture proceedings (Sec. 12) which may be filed separately and proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. a. The Criminal Action Republic Act No. 9160 as amended (The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001) defines Money Laundering Offense. — Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the following: (a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said monetary instrument or property. (b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above. (c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so. JURISDICTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING CASES The regional trial courts shall have jurisdiction to try all cases on money laundering. Those committed by public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The foregoing section apparently refers to the criminal offense of anti-money laundering as defined in Section 4 of the law. a. The Civil Forfeiture Proceedings The law provided that in petitions for civil forfeiture the Revised Rules of Court shall apply. In consequence thereof, the Supreme Court issued the — RULE OF PROCEDURE IN CASES OF CIVIL FORFEITURE, ASSET PRESERVATION, AND FREEZING OF MONETARY INSTRUMENT, PROPERTY, OR PROCEEDS REPRESENTING, INVOLVING, OR RELATING TO AN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OR MONEY LAUNDERING OFFENSE UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160, AS AMENDED. The Rule expressly provided that — The Rule shall govern all proceedings for civil forfeiture, asset preservation and freezing of monetary instrument, property, or proceeds representing, involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense under Republic Act No. 9160, as amended. The Revised Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily when not inconsistent with the provisions of this special Rule. Title II of the Rule provided only for Civil Forfeiture in the Regional Trial Court. Thus — SEC. 2. Party to Institute Proceedings. — The Republic of the Philippines, through the Anti-Money Laundering Council, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, may institute actions for civil forfeiture and all other remedial proceedings in favor of the State of any monetary instrument, property, or proceeds representing, involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense. SEC. 3. Venue of Cases Cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. — A petition for civil forfeiture shall be filed in any regional trial court of the judicial region where the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds representing, involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense are located; provided, however, that where all or any portion of the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds is located outside the Philippines, the petition may be filed in the regional trial court in Manila or of the judicial region where any portion of the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds is located, at the option of the petitioner. b. The Rule Does Not Provide for Civil Forfeiture Before the Sandiganbayan The law created an Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) — tasked with implementing the law, was empowered x x x (3) to institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all other remedial proceedings through the Office of the Solicitor General; (4) to cause the filing of complaints with the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for the prosecution of money laundering offenses; (5) to initiate investigations of covered transactions, money laundering activities and other violations of this Act. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FORFEITURE DISTINGUISHED It is to be noted that under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, so far as Civil Forfeiture is concerned it is the AMLC that is authorized to institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all other remedial proceedings through the Office of the Solicitor General with the Regional Trial Court. There is no similar authority to file such cases with the Sandiganbayan. It is only in criminal cases that the AMLC is authorized to cause the filing of complaints with the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for the prosecution of money laundering offenses. But unlike Civil Forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379 which specifically authorized its filing by the Ombudsman or thru the Office of Special Prosecutor in the Sandiganbayan. No similar authority have been granted the Ombudsman with respect to civil forfeiture under the Anti-money Laundering Law. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN OVER PUBLIC OFFICERS a. The Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute Public Officers for any illegal act or omission is not exclusive but a shared concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. b. The Ombudsman's primary power to investigate is dependent on the cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction is dependent on the cases cognizable by the former. But the authority is concurrent with other similarly
authorized agencies. However, the Ombudsman may take over the investigation of such case at any stage from any investigative agency of the Government. This is only directory. SANDIGANBAYAN NOW WITH CERTIORARI JURISDICTION R.A. No. 7975 expressly conferred certiorari jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. WHERE PUBLIC OFFICIAL CHARGED AS MERE ACCOMPLICE OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1861, provides in part "that in case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices, or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or -controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees." The rule that "accessory follows the principal" appears to underlie the provision of Presidential Decree No. 1606, for when private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, the implication is that the latter was charged as principal. Hence, if a public officer or employee is charged as a mere accomplice or accessory with a private individual, as principal, the corollary implication is that the former shall be tried jointly with the latter in the ordinary courts. The rationale is justified by the total absence of a provision in Presidential Decree No. 1606 directing that all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, without distinction, be tried by the Sandiganbayan, even if the criminal involvement of the public officer is minor or subordinate and inferior to that of the private individuals charged as principals in the case. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is not meant to be so broad and all-encompassing. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN OVER PCGG Under Section 2 of Executive Order No. 14, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all cases regarding the "funds, moneys, assets and properties illegally acquired by former President Ferdinant E. Marcos x x x" civil or criminal, including incidents arising from such cases. The decision of the Sandiganbayan is subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court. In the exercise of its functions, the PCGG is a co-equal body with the Regional Trial Courts and co-equal bodies have no power to control the other. The Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals have no jurisdiction over the PCGG in the exercise of its powers under the applicable Executive Orders and Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution and, therefore, may not interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders and actions of the PCGG acting for and in behalf of said Commission. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER CASES FILED BY PCGG The exclusive jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan over civil and criminal cases filed by PCGG, as well as incidents arising from, incidental or related to such cases is subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court. JURISDICTION TO ANNUL JUDGMENTS The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to annul judgments of the Regional Trial Court in a sequestration related case, such as a judgment of the Regional Trial Court for the enforcement of a foreign judgment involving property that has been lawfully sequestered. JURISDICTION OVER MILITARY AND PNP Republic Act No. 7055 — AN ACT STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE MILITARY BY RETURNING TO THE CIVIL COURTS THE JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN OFFENSES INVOLVING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PRESIDENTIAL DECREES. SECTION 1. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government ordinance, regardless of whether or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is service- connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court- martial: Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts. As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended. In imposing the penalty for such crimes or offenses, the court- martial may take into consideration the penalty prescribed therefor in the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government ordinances. SEC. 2. Subject to the provisions of Section 1 hereof, all cases filed or pending for filing with court-martial or other similar bodies except those where the accused had already been arraigned, shall, within thirty (30) days following the effectivity of this Act, be transferred to the proper civil courts: Provided, That the Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall, upon petition before commencement of trial and with the written consent of the accused, order the transfer of such expected case or cases to the proper civil courts for trial and resolution. SEC. 3. Presidential Decree Nos. 1822, 1822-A, 1850 and 1952, and all acts general orders, executive orders, and other presidential issuances, rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. The law does not include violations of Republic Act 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft Law even if service- connected. Violation of this law falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial Court depending on the nature of the position of the offender. JURISDICTION OVER THE PNP BY REGULAR COURTS SEC. 46. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases. — Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, criminal cases involving PNP members shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts; Provided, That the courts-martial appointed pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1850 shall continue to try PC-INP members who have already been arraigned, to include appropriate actions thereon by the reviewing authorities pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 408, otherwise known as the Articles of War, as amended and Executive Order No. 178, otherwise known as the Manual for Courts-Martial;
without surrendering himself, and shortly thereafter, filed a motion asking the court to fix the amount of bail bond for his release pending trial, the Supreme Court categorically pronounced that said petitioner was not eligible for admission to bail. The person seeking his provisional release under the auspices of bail need not even wait for a formal complaint or information to be filed against him as it is available to "all persons" where the offense is bailable. This rule is, of course, subject to the condition or limitation that the applicant is in the custody of the law. The Court should not even allow a motion for bail to be set for hearing unless it has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the case by its filing in Court. Custody How Acquired: The accused must be in custody of the law, either: a) By virtue of a warrant or warrantless arrest; or b) When he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court by surrendering to the proper authorities. The mere filing of an application for bail is not sufficient. This principle is, however, only for purposes of bail. In other cases, the filing of motion or other papers invoking affirmative relief is a submission to court's jurisdiction. Hence, an application for admission to bail of a person against whom a criminal action has been filed, but who is still at large is premature. As a matter of course, upon voluntary appearance of the accused, the judge should require another motion for bail and set the same for hearing, with the prosecution notified thereof. Unless the accused is in the custody of the law, the court may not even set his application for bail for hearing. EXCEPTIONS WHEN MERE FILING OF MOTION SUFFICIENT In Paderanga v. Court of Appeals (supra), the accused having filed his motion for admission to bail before he was actually and physically placed under arrest, as he was then confined at the hospital, and his counsel manifested before the court at the hearing of the motion that he was submitting custody of the person of the accused to the local chapter president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and for purposes of said hearing on his bail application, he be considered as being in the custody of the law, the Supreme Court held that he may at that point and in the factual ambiance thereof, be considered as being constructively and legally under custody. Thus, in the likewise peculiar circumstances which attended the filing of his bail application with the trial court, for purposes of the hearing thereof he should be deemed to have voluntarily submitted his person to the custody of the law and necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court which thereafter granted bail as prayed for. In fact, an arrest is made either by an actual restraint of the arrestee or merely by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. The latter mode may be exemplified by the so-called "house arrest" or, in case of military offenders, by being "confined to quarters" or restricted to the military camp area. The accused who desires to question the jurisdiction of a court over his person must appear in court only for the specific purpose, and if he raises other questions, he waived the objection to question the jurisdiction over her person. Failure to quash the information on the ground that, by the defective arrest, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused is a waiver to question jurisdiction over his person. Under Section 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure: "The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance." There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission of one's person to the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included; (2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and (3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest. To recapitulate what we have discussed so far, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of the law. In cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the general rule applies, i.e., the accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief Notwithstanding this, there is no requirement for him to be in the custody of the law. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED BY ARREST OR VOLUNTARY SURRENDER NOT CONDITION FOR COURT TO GRANT AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF Except in applications for bail, it is not necessary for the court to first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to dismiss the case or grant other relief. The outright dismissal of the case even aefore the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused s authorized under Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of criminal Procedure and the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. In Allado v. Diokno, the case was dismissed on motion of the iccused for lack of probable cause without the accused having been arrested. In Paul Roberts v. Court of Appeals, the Court was ordered to hold the issuance of a warrant of arrest in abeyance pending review by the Secretary of Justice.
And in Lacson v. Executive Secretary, the Court ordered the case transferred from the Sandiganbayan to the RTC which eventually ordered the dismissal of the case for lack of probable cause. It was held in People v. Chun, that where the accused believed that the order of the holding that bail for the crime charged against him is not a matter of right is null and void, he need not wait to be arrested before filing the corresponding petition in an appropriate proceeding assailing the order. THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC) EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 2000 RULE 110 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES SECTION 1. Institution of Criminal Actions There are three (3) amendments in this rule: First: The removal of cases governed by the Rule on Sum- mary Procedure in special cases from the manner of institution of criminal actions above provided for. The opening phrase in the former Rule — "For offenses not subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases" — was deleted. This phrase was ane of the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Zaidivia v. Reye^1 excluding offenses subject to summary procedure from the general rule on the interruption of the period of prescription. Under the amendment, the institution of all criminal actions shall be the same. Second : Under the former rule, the commencement of actions by filing the complaint with the appropriate officer for preliminary investigation were limited to cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. This is no longer true. Under Section 1 of Rule 112, except as provided in Section 7 of said rule, referring to lawful arrests without a warrant, preliminary investigation is required for an offense punishable by imprisonment of at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day. The reason why originally there was no preliminary investigation in cases triable by justice of the peace or municipal courts was because they involved only minor offenses or misdemeanors. The criminal cases then exclusively triable by municipal courts were those where the penalty provided by law did not exceed six months imprisonment and/or a P200.00 fine. Subsequently, however, the offenses exclusively triable by municipal courts were increased to those punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months and/or a fine ofP4.000.00 and were further increased to those punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of the fine. Clearly, therefore, these offenses were not minor or misdemeanors and yet no preliminary investigation was required. Since, the type of offenses that requires preliminary investigation have been expanded by amendment to Section 1, Rule 112 to offenses punishable by imprisonment of at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, Section 1 required such cases to first be filed for preliminary investigation. Section 1 has accordingly been amended by removing therefrom the limitation to offenses commenced by complaint before the appropriate officer for preliminary investigation only to those offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, but included to a limited extent cases cognizable by the municipal trial courts. It should also be noted section 5, Rule II of Administrative No. 8 of the Office of the Ombudsman provides that: "Cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman which are cognizable by municipal trial courts, including those subject to the Rule on Summary Procedure may only be filed in court by Information approved by the Ombudsman, or the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases." Third : Under the former rule, prescription is interrupted in all cases upon the institution of the criminal action. The 1988 Amendments abandoned the ruling of the Supreme Court in People u. Olarte and adopts the ruling in Francisco u. Court of Appeals, to the effect that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office also interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged. This includes cases filed with the ombudsman for prelimi- nary investigation. The Rule does not apply to violations of municipal ordinances and special laws. In Zaidivia u. Reyes, the court held that the interruption of the prescriptive period upon the institution of the complaint under Section 1 of Rule 110, does not apply to cases for violation of special acts and municipal ordinances.
Section 2 of Act No. 3326 was correctly applied by the anti-graft court in determining the reckoning period for prescription in a case involving the crime of violation of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended. Since the law alleged to have been violated, i.e., paragraphs (e) and (g) of Section 3, R.A. No. 3019, as amended, is a special law, the applicable rule in the computation of the prescriptive period is Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, which provides: Sec. 2. Prescription should 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 institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when the proceedings are instituted against the guilty person and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy This simply means that if the commission of the crime is known, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day it was committed. The Civil Law rules on prescription is applicable to criminal Condition Precedent to Filing of Case The Local Government Code of 1991 which took effect on January 1, 1992, expressly repealed Presidential Decree No. 1508, otherwise known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. In lieu thereof, Chapter 7, Title I, Book III provides for the Katarungang Pambarangay. Pertinent provisions of the law are as follows: SEC. 412. Conciliation. — (a) Pre-condition to filing of complaint in court. — No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the Lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the Lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the Lupon chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto. (b) Where parties may go directly to court. — The parties may go directly to court in the following instances: (1) Where the accused is under detention; (2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings; (3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property, and support pendente life; and (4) Where the action, may otherwise, be barred by the statute of limitations. (c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities. — The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities. However, under Republic Act No. 837, the ICCs/Ps shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. When disputes involve ICCs/Ps, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute. The National Commission on ICCs/Ps NCIP through its regional offices shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving ICCs/Ps, provided, however, that no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws to settle the dispute as certified to by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt at such settlement. Decisions of the NCIP shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review. SEC. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. — The lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except: (a) Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; (b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; (c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); (d) Offenses where there is no private offended party; (e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon; (f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;and (g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement. SEC. 2. The Complaint or Information Criminal actions must be commenced in the name of the People of the Philippines. — But the defect is merely of form and curable at any stage of the trial. SEC. 3. Complaint Defined Who May File Complaint a. The offended party. b. Any peace officer. c. Other public officer charged with the enforcement or execution of the law violated. The provincial fiscal is not among the three. The information filed by him which instituted the proceeding cannot be considered as a complaint.
- Meaning of the term "offended party." — The person actually injured and whose feeling is offended.
2) A widow, however, maybe considered an
offended party within the meaning of the applicable rules of court entitled to file a complaint for the murder of her husband.^2 Justice Davide, Jr., citing Section 12, Rule 110 refers to an "offended party" in the commission of a crime, public or private, as the party to whom the offender is civilly liable in light of Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code that "every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Invariably then, the private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is the offended party. In bigamy both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties depending on the circumstances
- The right to commence criminal prosecution is confined to representatives of the government and persons injured; otherwise, it shall be dismissed. d. But One who is not the offended party file a complaint for preliminary investigation. Unless the offense subject of the complaint is one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, any competent person may file a complaint for preliminary investigation. As a general rule, a criminal action is commenced by a complaint or information, or both of which are filed in court. If a complaint is filed directly in court, the same must be filed by the offended party and in case of an information, the same may be filed by the fiscal. However, a "complaint" filed with the fiscal prior to judicial action may be filed by any person. e. Private persons may denounce a violation of banking laws. A complaint with the fiscal prior to a judicial action may be filed by any person. f. A criminal action cannot be instituted against a juridical person. g. To subscribe and swear to criminal complaint is not ministerial. But the absence of an oath does not invalidate the complaint. Unless the complaint charged is a private offense. h. The right to file complaint is personal and abated upon death. MAY INJUNCTION ISSUE TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION The general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. Public i nterest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society.
