Unformatted text preview: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Ateneo de Davao University | College of Law
From the Discussions and Lectures of
Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez
SY 2018-2019
Criminal Procedure
It is a generic term to describe the network of laws and rules
which governs the procedural administration of justice. As such,
it treats of the rules and processes by which the criminal laws
are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who
violate such laws.
Procedural law as applied to criminal law, “provides or regulates
the steps which one who committed the crime is to be
punished” (People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267). While criminal law
declares what conduct is criminal as it defines crimes and
prescribes punishments, criminal procedure lays down the
processes offender is made to answer for the crime committed.
Jurisdiction
How do we define jurisdiction with reference to criminal cases?
It is the power and authority of the court to take cognizance of
an offense and announce the sentence or judgment provided
for by law after trying in the manner prescribed.
When you talk about taking cognizance, it is to “try a case,” to
pronounce a judgment, to issue a verdict of guilty or not guilty
as to pronounce the sentence provided for by law. Suppose a
judge finds the accused guilty of homicide, can the judge
sentence him to death? The answer is no, because it is not the
penalty provided for by law. A judge has to pronounce the sentence provided for
by law, after a trial. So, there must be a trial – full trial.
Elements of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases
As evinced in Cruz v. Court of Appeals 388 SCRA 72, a reading
of jurisprudence and treatises on the matter discloses the
following basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction
over criminal cases:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
3. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
Jurisdiction over
Subject Matter
Refers to the authority of
the court to hear and
determine a particular
criminal case, in simpler
terms the jurisdiction over
the offense charged. Jurisdiction over the
Person of the Accused
Refers to the authority of
the court over the person
charged. This kind of
jurisdiction requires that the
person charged with the
offense must have been
brought into its forum for
trial forcibly by warrant of
arrest of voluntary
submission to the court. Court, Definition
Is a body in the government to which the public administration
of justice is delegated. Entity or body vested with a portion of
the judicial power.
Judge, Definition
A public officer lawfully appointed to preside over a court for
the purpose of administering the law. The jurisdiction however
is vested in the court not the judge. The judge is the person and
the court is the body.
Courts in the Philippines
1. Supreme Court
2. Court of Appeals; Sandiganbayan; Court of Tax Appeals
3. Regional Trial Court
4. Municipal Trial Court
Some Special Courts in the Philippines
1. Probate Courts
2. Land Registration Courts
3. Tribal Courts
4. Family Courts
Classification of Courts
1. Constitutional and Statutory Courts – there is only one
constitutional court, and it’s the Supreme Court.
2. Superior and Inferior Courts – the hierarchy of courts
arranged from MTC the least to SC.
3. Original Court and Appellate Courts – an original court
is where you file an action for the first time, Court of
Appeals is appellate, MTC is always an original court.
4. Civil and Criminal Courts – note that these are not
separate courts, but on the subject matter.
5. Courts of Law and Courts of Equity – there are certain
situations that the court is not merely of law but also
of equity.
Functions of Courts
In general, the court is tasked for the administration of justice.
1. The ascertainment or determination of relevant facts
of the controversy;
2. The application of the law to those facts in order to
resolve the controversy;
Judicial Power
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies
or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and
demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of
wrongs for violations of such rights.
Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference
No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the
judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction or of those
with co-equal level.
Example. When the case is filed in MTC A, it cannot be filed with
any other MTC court, except in cases allowed by the Rules of
Court or by law. From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 3 Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question
within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, when the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring specialized knowledge and expertise of
said administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters. In Trenas v. People, 664 SCRA 355, the place where the crime
was committed determines not only the venue of the action but
is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule
that for jurisdiction to be acquired in criminal cases, the offense
should have been committed or any of one its essential
ingredients should have been committed or within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court. Hearing and Trial, Distinguished
When we mean by trial, it may refer to reception of evidence
and other processes involved in the court proceedings. On the
other hand a hearing may refer to the several stages of a case,
this includes arraignment, pre-trial and of the like. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot
take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
allegedly committed outside that limited territory. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
The word jurisdiction comes from the word juris meaning law
and the word dico meaning to speak or to say. The word literally
translates to “I speak by the law,” in this regard it roughly means
as the power over a particular thing, also the power to enforce
a judgment. Jurisdiction is essential to remember because
without jurisdiction a judgment by the court is null and void.
Types of Jurisdiction
1. General Jurisdiction – the authority of the court to hear
all actions and suits (e.g. RTC).
Special or Limited Jurisdiction – the authority of the
court to hear on specific cases.
2. Original Jurisdiction – this is where the case is initially
filed, the inception and commencement of cases.
Appellate Jurisdiction – this is the power to review,
reverse, revise the judicial decision of a lower court. 3. Exclusive Jurisdiction – that possessed by a court to the
exclusion of all others (e.g. BP 22 cases to MTC).
Concurrent or Coordinate – with other courts ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
In criminal cases, it is important to note that a court can only
take cognizance of a criminal case when the three following
elements are present in the case:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Jurisdiction over the Person
3. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter 1. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
Territorial Jurisdiction
It is the limit of the geographical boundaries of a place, within
which the court has jurisdiction to act judicially and outside of
which his acts are null and void.
A very important principle in relation to jurisdiction over the
territory is that, in criminal cases, venue is jurisdiction and a
court is bereft of jurisdiction to try an offense committed
outside its limited territory. If evidence during trial shows that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want
of jurisdiction.
NOTE: For a complaint or information to be sufficient, the same
must enable the court, through the allegations therein, to
determinate that the offense was committed or any of its
essential ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdiction of the court (Rule 110, Section 6).
Rules in Territorial Jurisdiction
The rule places the venue of criminal cases either in the court
of the municipality or territory:
(a) Where the offense was committed, or
(b) Where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
BP 129, Chapter II, Section 13
There are thirteen (13) Regional Trial Courts. Only 13 RTCs in
the whole country. Why is it then that in the Hall of Justice, we
have RTC 8,9, 10 and 33? These are mere branches of the RTC
of Davao City and under Section 13 of BP 129 we belong to the
11th Judicial Region.
“The Eleventh Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Davao del
Norte, Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur, South Cotabato, and Surigao del
Sur, and the cities of Davao, and General Santos” Courts are limited to assumed jurisdiction over crimes
committed within their territorial jurisdiction. Now under
Section 14 of BP 129 it is stated that for the 11th Judicial Region
there are 29 Region Trial Judges. So, if we look over the codal
provisions it provides that for the 11 Judicial Region are as
follows:
“(l) Twenty-nine Regional Trial Judges shall be commissioned for the
Eleventh Judicial Region. There shall be:
Four branches (Branches I to IV) for the province of Davao del Norte,
Branches I and II with seats at Tagum, Branch III in Nabunturan, and
Branch IV in Panabo;
Three branches (Branches V to VII) for the province of Davao Oriental,
Branches V and VI with seats at Mati and Branch VII at Banganga;
Fourteen branches (Branches VIII to XXI) for the province of Davao del
Sur and the city of Davao, Branches VIII to XVII with seats at Davao City,
Branches XVIII and XIX at Digos, Branch XX at Malita, and Branch XXI at
Bansalan; From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 4 Five Branches (Branches XXII to XXVI) for the province of South
Cotabato and the city of General Santos, Branches XXII and XXIII with
seats at General Santos City, Branches XXIV and XXV at Koronadal, and
Branch XXVI at Surallah;
and Three branches (Branches XXVII to XXIX) for the province of Surigao
del Sur, Branch XXVII with seat at Tandag, Branch XXVIII at Lianga, and
Branch XXIX at Bislig. Take note however that there is Branch XXXIII in Davao, it seems
that we have been adding courts. So, branches VIII to XVII in
Davao can exercise Territorial Jurisdiction over the crimes
committed in Davao City.
How is territorial jurisdiction determined?
It is determined by the geographical area over which it presides.
RTCs of Davao preside over Davao City and the fact the crime
was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place
within said area is an element of jurisdiction. In other words,
Davao City RTCs exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in
Davao City.
Interim Rules
According to Section 2, we have two lower courts the RTC and
MTCs. MTCs shall exercise jurisdiction over the city, municipality
or the circuit of which judge thereof is appoint or designated.
MTC Jurisdiction (Chapter III, BP 129)
There are Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial
Courts (MTC) and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC). To
outline the chapter, it provides for the following.
Section 27 – MeTCs in NCR
Section 28 – Other MeTCs
Section 29 – MTCs in Cities, seven (7) MTCs for Davao City.
Section 30 – MTC (not in cities)
Section 31- MCTCs PEOPLE v. OLERMO (2003)
This involved illegal recruitment in large scale without securing
license, the crime cannot have convicted beyond RTC
Valenzuela. Information was filed in RTC Valenzuela. She allegedly committed the crime and met the
complainant in Quezon City. Yes, RTC of Valenzuela had jurisdiction over the crime
of illegal recruitment in large scale against Marlene
Olermo. The element of recruitment took place in her office in
Valenzuela, at least one of the elements. Since the action was filed of RTC Valenzuela where
one of the ingredients took place, the jurisdiction
already has attached, it has exclusive jurisdiction.
PURITA LIM v. JUDGE DUMLAO (2005)
A municipal trial court judge has no authority to grant bail to
an accused arrested outside of his territorial jurisdiction. In this
case, the filed against RTC Santiago. Order of release should
have released by RTC Santiago, no proof presented that he was
absent. Judge Dumlao of MTC erred in approving bail and
issuing the order of release. This is another city – San Mateo
Isabela. It was filed in RTC.
MORILLO v. PEOPLE AND NATIVIDAD (2015)
Natividad was charged for BP 22 of MTC Makati because the
checks were delivered to Pampanga, thus, MTC of Makati has
jurisdiction of the case.
BP 22 are considered as transitory or continuing crimes. Since
the checks were drawn and issued in Pampanga but MTC
Makati has jurisdiction. Even if brought to Makati and
deposited the check there. 2. JURISDICTION OVER THE
PERSON OF THE ACCUSED Q. How do you differentiate MTCs from RTCs?
In Davao it is easy because the MTC and RTCs herein have the
same territorial jurisdiction. But there are areas in Mindanao
which applies different. For example, in Samal there is no RTC
there thus, RTC cases are tried in either Tagum or Panabo. In
Kaputian, Samal there is an MTC. There are instances when a case in a municipality for
RTC has not RTC in the municipality itself. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
In criminal cases, the start is the accused and the court does not
have to acquire jurisdiction upon anyone else when you talk
about person unlike in civil cases. CASE DISCUSSIONS Suppose X is charged with murder before the RTC of Davao
City. Now, the next step that the judge would do is to issue a
warrant of arrest. It is very important so that the court can have
jurisdiction over the case or else the judgment is void. ARANES v. JUDGE OCCIANO (2002)
Territorial jurisdiction in a different municipality, although in
same province, but outside jurisdiction of the judge. Judge
Occiano solemnized the marriage in a municipality outside his
territorial jurisdiction.
Judge Aranes solemnized a marriage outside his territorial
jurisdiction at the request of the parties, thus the action cannot
be a legal basis for enforcement of actions because of lack of
jurisdiction of the judge in rendering the decision. Ways Court Acquire Jurisdiction over the Person of Accused
1. Voluntary appearance or surrender
2. Arrest Now, if X finds out of the warrant against him, what he can do
is to go to court and surrender and submit himself under the
jurisdiction of the court.
Now suppose X has no idea of the warrant of arrest against him
and he was arrested, the moment he is arrested, then the court
again acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 5 CASE DISCUSSIONS
TABAO v. JUDGE BARATAMAN (2002)
Here, Samsodin was accused of the crime abandonment of
minor. Now, before he could be arrested and before he made
voluntary appearance before the court, the judge issued an
order granting the motion for bail. Now, the thing is, normally,
what is the purpose of voluntary appearing before the court? If
a warrant of arrest is already released. X will go there not only
to voluntary surrender but apply for bail so that he could have
temporary liberty.
But what happened here in this case? Samsodin, never
appeared before the court. He sent his daddy to go there and
apply for bail. And the judge granted it, without seeing his face
at all. SC said that the court did not have jurisdiction over the
person of the accused and therefore anything that is issued, any
order that is issued by the court will not bind the accused. So, he
cannot order that he be granted bail if the court does not have
jurisdiction over his person yet.
TALAG v. JUDGE REYES (2004)
We have this guy who is accused of estafa and BP22 and he was
already charged in court and normally as already mentioned,
after a person is charged in court, the court will issue a warrant
of arrest. Now Mr. Talag, he filed the motion to defer the
issuance of warrant of arrest because he wanted maybe a
reinvestigation or remand the case. He wanted the prosecutor
to reinvestigate.
In this case, his prayer was to defer the issuance of the warrant,
but the judge did not grant the motion and the judge issued
the warrant against him. Precisely, to acquire jurisdiction over
your person, the court has to issue a warrant of arrest. So that
you will either be arrested, or you will voluntarily surrender. But
to say the court cannot issue the warrant due to not being able
to acquire jurisdiction over your person is wrong.
Compared to our earlier case in Tabao vs. Barataman, the judge
cannot grant the motion for bail because that particular act
already assumes that if one grant the motion for bail, there is
already an assumption that jurisdiction over the person was
already acquired. But to issue a warrant, that is not. There is no
prerequisite in issuing the warrant. The only prerequisite is
probable cause and that person has been charged in court.
DE JOYA v. JUDGE MARQUEZ (2006)
There’s nothing really here that we can talk about with respect
to the facts. The only reason why I asked you to read this case
is to be able to see different kinds of jurisdiction. Please be able
to distinguish between a “defendant” and the “accused”.
The accused is in the criminal cases, defendant in civil cases.
Now, sometimes, the SC will call the accused the “defendant”
that is the prerogative of the SC, but you are not the SC. In
addition, it may not be amiss to note that Chester de la Joya is
not entitled to seek relief from this Court nor from the trial court
as he continuously refuses to surrender and submit to the
court’s jurisdiction. Requisites for the Exercise of Jurisdiction and
How the Court Acquires such Jurisdiction
a. b. c. d. e. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner – this is
acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or
initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or
petitioner.
Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent –
this is acquired by voluntary appearance or submission
by the defendant or respondent to the court or by
coercive process issued by the court to him, generally
by the service of summons.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter – this is
conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the
parties, cannot be conferred on the court by voluntary
act of the parties.
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case – this is
determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the
case by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial
order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied
consent as by the failure of a party to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings.
Jurisdiction over the res (property or thing subject of
the litigation) – this is acquired by the actual or
constructive seizure by the court of the thing in
question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in
attachment or garnishment, or by provision of law
which recognizes in the court the power to deal with
property or subject matter within its territorial
jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits
involving civil status or real property in the Philippines
of a non-resident defendant. 3. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
This is the common jurisdiction in civil and criminal ...
View
Full Document
