Criminal-Procedure-2018-Santiago-Exam-I-and-II.pdf - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Ateneo de Davao

Criminal-Procedure-2018-Santiago-Exam-I-and-II.pdf -...

This preview shows page 1 out of 143 pages.

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

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture