CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES

ATTY. CHESKA SENGA

MODULE 11- GENERAL MATTERS hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be
lawfully acquired by it over the person of the defendant or over the
Due Process in Criminal Court property which is the subject of the proceeding; (3) the defendant
1. ALONTE VS SOVELLANO JR must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must
I: Whether or not accused were denied due process of law – YES. be rendered upon lawful hearing.
R: Judge Savellano contends that the accused were each ● The Supreme Court ruled that if an accused has been heard
represented during the hearing with their respective counsel, and in a court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against
because none posed an intention to cross-examine Punongbayan under the orderly processes of law, and only punished after
when clarificatory questions were asked about the details of the inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, with
rape and on the voluntariness of her desistance, the right to do so opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded within the
is deemed waived. authority of the constitutional law, then he has had due
● However, even though the right to confront and cross-examine a process.
witness may be waived, the same must be voluntarily made. Such
waiver must be made knowingly, intelligently, and with sufficient 3. DE LIMA VS GUERERRO
awareness of the circumstances and consequences thereof. Mere I: A. Whether or not petitioner is excused from compliance with the
silence does not mean the waiver of such right, and the courts doctrine on hierarchy of courts considering that the petition should
must indulge every reasonable presumption against such waiver. first be filed with the Court of Appeals.
● Also, deviations from the regular course of trial were committed. B. Whether or not the pendency of the Motion to Quash the
The petitioners have not been directed to present evidence to Information before the trial court renders the instant petition
prove their defenses nor have dates been scheduled for the premature.
purpose. Also, the accused have not been given the opportunity to D. Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan has the
present rebutting evidence nor have dates been set by Judge jurisdiction over the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in
Savellano for the same purpose. Finally, the accused have not the assailed Information.
admitted the act charged in the Information so as to justify any
modification in the order of the trial. R: A. NO. None of the exceptions were sufficiently established in
● Due process is an enshrined and invaluable right that cannot be the present petition so as to convince this court to brush aside the
denied even to the most undeserving. There can be no shortcut to rules on the hierarchy of courts.
the legal process, and there can be no excuse for not affording an ● Petitioner’s allegation that her case has sparked national
accused his full day in court. and international interest is obviously not covered by the
exceptions to the rules on hierarchy of courts. The
2. PEOPLE VS DAPITAN notoriety of a case, without more, is not and will not be a
I: Whether or not Dapitan was deprived of due process. – NO reason for this Court’s decisions.
R: Due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present: ● Neither will this Court be swayed to relax its rules on the
(1) there must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to bare fact that the petitioner belongs to the minority party in
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
the present administration. A primary hallmark of an confiscated drugs are certainly but trivial contributions in the furtherance of
independent judiciary is its political neutrality. This Court is the transnational illegal drug trading — the offense for which the persons
thus loath to perceive and consider the issues before it involved should be penalized.
through the warped prisms of political partisanships.
● That the petitioner is a senator of the republic does not
also merit a special treatment of her case. The right to
equal treatment before the law accorded to every Filipino
also forbids the elevation of petitioner’s cause on account
of her position and status in the government.
Jurisdiction over the Person of the accused
B. YES. the prematurity of the present petition cannot be I. Voluntary Submission
over-emphasized considering that petitioner is actually asking the 1. PEOPLE VS GO
Court to rule on some of the grounds subject of her Motion to I: May respondent, a private person, be indicted for conspiracy in
Quash. The Court, if it rules positively in favor of petitioner violating Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019, even if the public officer, with
regarding the grounds of the Motion to Quash, will be pre-empting whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the
the respondent Judge from doing her duty to resolve the said filing of the Information? YES
motion and even prejudge the case. This is clearly outside of the R: It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile's death, there is no longer
ambit of orderly and expeditious rules of procedure. This, without any public officer with whom respondent can be charged for violation of
a doubt, causes an inevitable delay in the proceedings in the trial R.A. 3019. It does not mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy
court, as the latter abstains from resolving the incidents until this between them can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is
Court rules with finality on the instant petition. already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary
Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did
D. NO. While it may be argued that some facts may be taken as it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private
constitutive of some elements of Direct Bribery under the Revised Penal respondent.
Code (RPC), these facts taken together with the other allegations in the ● The requirement before a private person may be indicted for
Information portray a much bigger picture, Illegal Drug Trading. The latter violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such
crime, described by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a
(UNODC) as “a global illicit trade involving the cultivation, manufacture, public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person
distribution and sale of substances,” necessarily involves various must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer.
component crimes, not the least of which is the bribery and corruption of ● Ideally, under the law, both respondent and Secretary Enrile
government officials. An example would be reports of recent vintage should have been charged before and tried jointly by the
regarding billions of pesos’ worth of illegal drugs allowed to enter Sandiganbayan. However, by reason of the death of the latter, this
Philippine ports without the scrutiny of Customs officials. Any money and can no longer be done. Nonetheless, for reasons already
bribery that may have changed hands to allow the importation of the discussed, it does not follow that the SB is already divested of its
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
jurisdiction over the person of and the case involving herein jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must first submit himself
respondent. To rule otherwise would mean that the power of a to the custody of the law.
court to decide a case would no longer be based on the law ● Hence, Judge Tumaliuan committed error in denying the motions
defining its jurisdiction but on other factors, such as the death of on basis of lack of jurisdiction. Judge Anghad was correct in
one of the alleged offenders. hearing the motions again. However, he acted with grave abuse of
2. MIRANDA VS TULIAO discretion in cancelling the warrants.
I: Whether or not the filing of the urgent motion for complete
preliminary investigation and motion to recall/quash the warrants 3. DAVID VS AGBAY
of arrest allowed the court to acquire jurisdiction over the persons I: WON the MTC properly denied petitioner’s motion for
of the accused; and in the affirmative, whether the cancellation of re-determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of
the warrants of arrest was done with grave abuse of discretion. jurisdiction over the person of the accused (petitioner). – NO
R: The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court R: On the issue relevant to the topic on jurisdiction:
acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his ● The MTC further cited lack of jurisdiction over the person
pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other of petitioner accused as ground for denying petitioner’s
pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction motion for re-determination of probable cause, as the
thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing motion was filed prior to his arrest. However, custody of
bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other
provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same cannot be than an application for bail. In Miranda v. Tuliao, which
posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the involved a motion to quash warrant of arrest, this Court
judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender. discussed the distinction between custody of the law and
● This is where there is a need to distinguish between custody of the jurisdiction over the person, and held that jurisdiction over
law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required the person of the accused is deemed waived when he
before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in
required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court
defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.
waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the ● Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in filing
accused. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the his motion for re-determination of probable cause, the
accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any MTC CLEARLY ERRED in stating that it lacked jurisdiction
pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he over his person. Notwithstanding such erroneous ground
invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such stated in the MTC’s order, the RTC correctly ruled that no
jurisdiction over his person. Therefore, in narrow cases involving grave abuse of discretion was committed by the MTC in
special appearances, an accused can invoke the processes of the denying the said motion for lack of merit.
court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor
custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the special
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
4. ALVA VS CA
I: Whether or not petitioner failed to submit himself to the
jurisdiction of the court or to the custody of the law despite the
posting of the subject bail bond.
R: Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary
surrender (citation omitted); while (the term) jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
appearance (citation omitted). One can be under the custody of
the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant
files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the
other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over
his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when
an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced.
● Moreover, jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the instance of
parties, as when an accused escapes from the custody of the law,
but continues until the case is terminated. Evidently, petitioner is
correct in that there is no doubt that the RTC already acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused petitioner – when he
appeared at the arraignment and pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged – notwithstanding the fact that he jumped bail and is now
considered a fugitive.
● As to whether or not petitioner has placed himself under the
custody of the CA, alas, we cannot say the same for being in the
custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby
deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become
obedient to the will of the law (citation omitted). Custody of the law
is literally custody over the body of the accused. It includes, but is
not limited to, detention.” In the case at bar, petitioner, being a
fugitive, until and unless he submits himself to the custody of the
law, in the manner of being under the jurisdiction of the courts, he
cannot be granted any relief by the CA.
Territorial Jurisdiction
Change of Venue to Avoid Miscarriage of Justice
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
1. CRUZ VS CA committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court
I: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the
RTC of Manila had jurisdiction to render judgment on the civil law requires the court to resolve. One of the issues in a
aspect of criminal case for falsification of public document, criminal case is the civil liability of the accused arising
involving a property located in Bulacan- No. from the crime. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
R: No. In upholding the trial court’s jurisdiction to render judgment provides that [E]very person criminally liable for a felony is
on the civil aspect of criminal case for falsification of public also civilly liable. Article 104 of the same Code states that
document, involving a property located in Bulacan, the Court of civil liability x x x includes restitution.
Appeals held: “Being a civil liability arising from the offense ● The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted
charged, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not in the criminal action unless reserved by the offended
the civil procedure rules which pertain to civil action arising from party. In the instant case, the offended party did not
the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit.” reserve the civil action and the civil action was deemed
● The Court agrees with ruling of the Court of Appeals. instituted in the criminal action. Although the trial court
● Petitioner asserts that the location of the subject property acquitted petitioner of the crime charged, the acquittal,
outside the courts territorial jurisdiction deprived the trial grounded on reasonable doubt, did not extinguish the civil
court of jurisdiction over the civil aspect of the criminal liability. Thus, the Manila trial court had jurisdiction to
case. This argument is contrary to the law and the rules. decide the civil aspect of the instant case - ordering
● There are three important requisites which must be restitution even if the parcel of land is located in Bulacan.
present before a court can acquire criminal jurisdiction.
First, the court must have jurisdiction over the subject 2. AAA VS BBB
matter. Second, the court must have jurisdiction over the I: A) Whether or not the Court should entertain the petition of AAA without
territory where the offense was committed. Third, the court the representation of the Office of the Solicitor General.
must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused. In B) Whether the grant of BBB’s motion to quash the information amounts to
the instant case, the trial court had jurisdiction over the acquittal.
subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the C) Whether the question of whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction in view
power to hear and decide cases involving estafa through of the peculiar provisions of R.A. No. 9262 is a question of law.
falsification of a public document. The trial court also had D) Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over an offense constituting
jurisdiction over the offense charged since the crime was psychological violence under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise
committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The trial court known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of
also acquired jurisdiction over the person of 2004, committed through marital infidelity, when the alleged illicit
accused-petitioner because she voluntarily submitted to relationship occurred or is occurring outside the country?
the courts authority. R: A) In the interest of substantial justice, the Court proceeded to entertain
● Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter the Petition filed by AAA.
and over the person of the accused, and the crime was
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● In AAA’s motion for extension of time, it was mentioned that she offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court
was awaiting the OSG’s response to her Letter requesting for and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal,
representation. Since, the OSG was unresponsive to her plea for inasmuch as if it were so the defendant could not be again
assistance in filing the intended petition, AAA filed the present prosecuted before the court of competent jurisdiction; and it is
petition in her own name before the lapse of the extension given elemental that in such case, the defendant may again be
her by this Court. prosecuted for the same offense before a court of competent
● Under the circumstances, the ends of substantial justice will be jurisdiction.
better served by entertaining the petition if only to resolve the ● The grant of BBB’s motion to quash may not therefore be viewed
question of law lodged before this Court. In Morillo v. People of the as an acquittal, which in limited instances may only be repudiated
Philippines, et al., (2015) where the Court entertained a Rule 45 by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 upon showing grave
petition which raised only a question of law filed by the private abuse of discretion lest the accused would be twice placed in
offended party in the absence of the OSG’s participation, we jeopardy.
recalled the instances when the Court permitted an offended party
to file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG. One such C) The question of whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction in view of
instance is when the interest of substantial justice so requires. the peculiar provisions of R.A. No. 9262 is a question of law. Thus, in
Morillo, the Court reiterated that:
B) Morillo v. People of the Philippines, et al., (2015) differentiated between ● The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the
dismissal and acquittal, thus: complaint or Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the
● Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is time of the filing of the complaint or Information, and the penalty
acquitted because the evidence does not show that defendant’s provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its
guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide commission. Thus, when a case involves a proper interpretation of
the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal the rules and jurisprudence with respect to the jurisdiction of
terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not a court courts to entertain complaints filed therewith, it deals with a
of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the question of law that can be properly brought to this Court under
offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, Rule 45.
or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and ● The Court is not called upon in this case to determine the truth or
substance, etc. The only case in which the word dismissal is falsity of the charge against BBB, much less weigh the evidence,
commonly but not correctly used, instead of the proper term especially as the case had not even proceeded to a full-blown trial
acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented all its on the merits. The issue for resolution concerns the correct
evidence, the defendant moves for the dismissal and the court application of law and jurisprudence on a given set of
dismisses the case on the ground that the evidence fails to show circumstances, i.e., whether or not Philippine courts are deprived
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty; for in such of territorial jurisdiction over a criminal charge of psychological
case the dismissal is in reality an acquittal because the case is abuse under R.A. No. 9262 when committed through marital
decided on the merits. If the prosecution fails to prove that the
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
infidelity and the alleged illicit relationship took place outside the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish
Philippines. psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary
to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in
D) In Dinamling v. People [2015] this Court already had occasion to Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to establish mental or
enumerate the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the
R.A. No. 9262, as follows: victim as such experiences are personal to this party.
Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. – The ● What R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se
crime of violence against women and their children is committed through but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional
any of the following acts: suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is the violence inflicted
xxxx under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Marital
● (i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or infidelity as cited in the law is only one of the various acts by which
humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, psychological violence may be committed. Moreover, depending
repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial on the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons,
support or custody of minor children or access to the woman’s the illicit relationship may or may not even be causing mental or
child/children. emotional anguish on the wife. Thus, the mental or emotional
● From the aforequoted Section 5(i), in relation to other sections of suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the
R.A. No. 9262, the elements of the crime are derived as follows: commission of the offense.
(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or
is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a
common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be
legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family
abode;
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or
emotional anguish; and
(4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of
financial support or custody of minor children or access to the
children or similar· such acts or omissions.
● Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i)
just like the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim.
Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator,
while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
1. GUEVARRA VS ALMODOVAR circumstances duly proven must be consistent with each other and that
I: Whether the court had jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the fact each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused’s guilt
that it did not pass thru the barangay lupon and inconsistent with his innocence.
R: On the petitioner’s contention: He submits that, considering his ● The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption
entitlement to a two-degree privileged mitigating circumstance due to his of innocence, failing which, the presumption of innocence prevails
minority, P.D. 1508 applies to his case because the penalty imposable is and the accused should be acquitted. This, despite the fact that
reduced to not higher than arresto menor from an original arresto mayor his innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on
maximum to prision correccional medium as prescribed in Article 365 of the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the
the RPC. weakness or even absence of defense. If the inculpatory facts and
● This is not correct. The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
is determined by the penalty imposable under the law for the which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
offense and not the penalty ultimately imposed. We therefore rule other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the
that, in construing Section 2(3) of P.D. 1508, the penalty which the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction,
law defining the offense attaches to the latter should be as in this case. Courts should be guided by the principle that it
considered. Hence, any circumstance which may affect criminal would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty
liability must not be considered. of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime
he did not commit.
Republic Act 7691 - An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of MeTC, MTC, ● Accordingly, there being no circumstantial evidence sufficient to
MCTC, amending BP 129; Criminal Cases covered by Summary support a conviction, the Court hereby acquits petitioners, without
Procedure prejudice, however, to any subsequent finding on their
1. PEOPLE VS ATIENZA administrative liability in connection with the incidents in this case.
I: Are the circumstantial evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction
R: No. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on
reason and common experience. It is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To uphold a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain
which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Stated
differently, the test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence
on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of PD 1606 as Amended by RA 8249; RA 10660 - Sandiganbayan
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
1. LACSON VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY the amended information that the victim was one of those arrested
I: WON offense of multiple murder was committed in relation to the office by the accused during the raid. How the raid, arrests and shooting
of the accused PNP officers. - NO happened in two places far away from each other is puzzling.
R: It is essential, therefore, that the accused be informed of the facts that Again, while there is the allegation in the amended information
are imputed to him as he is presumed to have no independent knowledge that the said accessories committed the offense in relation to office
of the facts that constitute the offense. Applying these legal principles and as officers and members of the (PNP), the Court, however, do not
doctrines to the present case, the amended information for murder was see the intimate connection between the offense charged and the
found wanting of specific factual averments to show the intimate accuseds official functions, which, as earlier discussed, is an
relation/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of essential element in determining the jurisdiction of the
official function of the offenders. Sandiganbayan.
“..taking advantage of their public and official positions as officers and
members of the Philippine National Police and committing the acts herein 2. CRISOSTOMO VS SB
alleged in relation to their public office did then and there willfully, I: Whether the sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of murder
unlawfully and feloniously shoot JOEL AMORA, thereby inflicting upon the charged against crisostomo who is a senior police officer 1 (spo1) at the
latter mortal wounds which caused his instantaneous death to the damage time of the filing of the information against him. - YES
and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.” R: On the respondents’ contentions:
● That accused committing the acts in relation to office as officers ● Crisostomo would have the Court believe that being a jail guard is
and members of the Philippine National Police are charged herein a mere incidental circumstance that bears no close intimacy with
as accessories after-the-fact for concealing the crime herein the commission of murder. Crisostomos theory would have been
above alleged by among others falsely representing that there tenable if the murdered victim was not a prisoner under his
were no arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused custody as a jail guard. The function of a jail guard is to insure the
herein at Superville Subdivision, Paranaque, Metro Manila on or safe custody and proper confinement of persons detained in
about the early dawn of May 18, 1995. the jail. In this case, the Information alleges that the victim was a
● While the above-quoted information states that the above-named detention prisoner when Crisostomo, the jail guard, conspired with
principal accused committed the crime of murder in relation to the inmates to kill him.
their public office, there is, however, no specific allegation of facts ● Indeed, murder and homicide will never be the main function of
that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was any public office. No public office will ever be a constituent
intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police element of murder. When then would murder or homicide,
officers. Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that committed by a public officer, fall within the exclusive and original
the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan? People v. Montejo provides
killed the latter while in their custody. the answer. The Court explained that a public officer commits an
● Even the allegations concerning the criminal participation of herein offense in relation to his office if he perpetrates the offense while
petitioner and intervenors as among the accessories after-the-fact, performing, though in an improper or irregular manner, his official
the amended information is vague on this. There is no indication in functions and he cannot commit the offense without holding his
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
public office. In such a case, there is an intimate connection of the Ombudsman that is vested with the power to conduct the
between the offense and the office of the accused. If the investigation of all cases involving public officers like him, as the municipal
information alleges the close connection between the offense mayor of Calauan, Laguna.
charged and the office of the accused, the case falls within the The Ombudsman is indeed empowered under Section 15, paragraph (1)
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. People v. Montejo is an of R.A. 6770 to investigate and prosecute, any illegal act or omission of
exception that Sanchez v. Demetriou recognized. any public official. However, as we held only two years ago in the case
● In the present case, the Information was filed with the of Aguinaldo v. Domagas, this authority "is not an exclusive authority
Sandiganbayan upon the recommendation of the Office of the but rather a shared or concurrent authority in. respect of the offense
Deputy Ombudsman in a Resolution dated 30 June 1993. That charged." In fact, other investigatory agencies, of the government such
Crisostomo committed the crime in relation to his office can be as the Department of Justice, in connection with the charge of sedition,
gleaned from the Deputy Ombudsmans resolution as it stated that: and the Presidential Commission on Good Government, in ill-gotten wealth
(1) Crisostomo was the jail guard on duty at the time that Renato cases, may conduct the investigation,
was killed; (2) from the time that Crisostomo assumed his duty up
to the discovery of Renatos body, no one had entered the jail and On the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
no one could enter the jail, as it was always locked, without the The petitioner argued earlier that since most of the accused were
permission of the jail guard; (3) the key is always with the jail incumbent public officials or employees at the time of the alleged
guard; (4) Renato sustained severe and multiple injuries inflicted commission of the crimes, the cases against them should come under the
by two or more persons indicating conspiracy; and (5) the relative jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and not of the regular courts. This
position of the jail guard to the cell is in such a way that any contention was withdrawn in his Reply but we shall discuss it just the same
activity inside the cell could be heard if not seen by the jail guard. for the guidance of all those concerned.
● However, The prosecutions evidence failed to overturn the Section 4, paragraph (a) of P.D. No, 1606, as amended by P.D. No.1861,
constitutional presumption of innocence warranting Crisostomos provides:
acquittal. Crisostomos acquittal, which is favorable and applicable Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
to Calingayan, should benefit Calingayan. a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as
3. SANCHEZ VS DEMETRIOU the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and
I: - Whether or not the Jurisdiction to investigate all cases involving public Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code:
officers be solely vested to the Ombusman? NO (2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees
- Whether or not the accused, as a public officer, be tried only by in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned
the Sandiganbayan? NO or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes,
R: On the Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or
Invoking the case of Deloso v. Domingo, the petitioner submits that the imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00. . . . (Emphasis
proceedings conducted by the Department of Justice are null and void supplied)
because it had no jurisdiction over the case. His claim is that it is the Office
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● The crime of rape with homicide with which the petitioner 4. ADAZA VS SB
stands charged obviously does not fall under paragraph (1), I: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over this case. – NO.
which deals with graft and corruption cases. Neither is it R: The charge against petitioner falls under Section 4, paragraph B of
covered by paragraph (2) because it is not an offense R.A. 8249. “Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
committed in relation to the office of the petitioner. exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
Public office is not of the essence of murder. The taking of human life is B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
either murder or homicide whether done by a private citizen or public crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
servant, and the penalty is the same except when the perpetrator. being a subsection a of this section in relation to their office.”
public functionary took advantage of his office, as alleged in this case, in For an offense to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
which event the penalty is increased. Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur:
But the use or abuse of office does not adhere to the crime as an element; (1) the offense committed is a violation of
and even as an aggravating circumstance, its materiality arises not from (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act),
the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that the criminals are (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth),
public officials but from the manner of the commission of the crime (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the
● There is no direct relation between the commission of the law on bribery),
crime of rape with homicide and the petitioner's office as (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 (sequestration
municipal mayor because public office is not an essential cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with
element of the crime charged. The offense can stand other crimes;
independently of the office. Moreover, it is not even alleged in the (2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a
information that the commission of the crime charged was public official or employee holding any of the positions enumerated in
intimately connected with the performance of the petitioner's paragraph A of Section 4; and
official functions to make it fall under the exception laid down in (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.
People v. Montejo. ● It is undisputed that at the time the alleged crime was committed,
● We have read the informations in the case at bar and find no he was the municipal mayor of Jose Dalman, a position
allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to corresponding to salary grade 27 under the Local Government
the petitioner was connected with the discharge of his functions as Code of 1991, which fact was properly alleged in the information.
municipal mayor or that there is an "intimate connection" between It is thus imperative to determine whether the offense, as
the offense and his office. It follows that the said crime, being charged, may be considered as having been committed "in
an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not relation to office" as this phrase is employed in the above-quoted
the Sandiganbayan. provision of R.A. 8249. For, for the Sandiganbayan to have
exclusive jurisdiction, it is essential that the facts showing the
intimate relation between the office of the offender and the
discharge of official duties be alleged in the information.
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● That the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in R: No. In upholding the trial court’s jurisdiction to render judgment on the
the complaint or information, and not by the evidence presented civil aspect of criminal case for falsification of public document, involving a
by the parties at the trial, is settled. The real nature of the criminal property located in Bulacan, the Court of Appeals held: “Being a civil
charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the liability arising from the offense charged, the governing law is the Rules of
information nor from the specification of the provision of law Criminal Procedure, not the civil procedure rules which pertain to civil
alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit.”
by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.
● Although herein petitioner was described in the information as "a The Court agrees with ruling of the Court of Appeals.
public officer being then the Mayor with salary grade 27 of Jose ● Petitioner asserts that the location of the subject property outside
Dalman, Zamboanga del Norte," there was no allegation showing the courts territorial jurisdiction deprived the trial court of
that the act of falsification of public document attributed to him was jurisdiction over the civil aspect of the criminal case. This
intimately connected to the duties of his office as mayor to bring argument is contrary to the law and the rules.
the case within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Neither was ● There are three important requisites which must be present before
there any allegation to show how he made use of his position as a court can acquire criminal jurisdiction. First, the court must have
mayor to facilitate the commission of the crimes charged. The jurisdiction over the subject matter. Second, the court must have
information merely alleges that petitioner falsified the jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed.
disbursement voucher by counterfeiting therein the signature of Third, the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the
Mejorada. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is this accused. In the instant case, the trial court had jurisdiction over
allegation that is controlling, not the evidence presented by the the subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the power
prosecution during the trial. to hear and decide cases involving estafa through falsification of a
● Clearly therefore, as the alleged falsification was not an offense public document. The trial court also had jurisdiction over the
committed in relation to the office of the accused, it did not come offense charged since the crime was committed within its territorial
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It follows that all its jurisdiction. The trial court also acquired jurisdiction over the
acts in the instant case are null and void ab initio. person of accused-petitioner because she voluntarily submitted to
● (While the Sandiganbayan is declared bereft of jurisdiction over the courts authority.
the criminal case filed against petitioner, the prosecution is not ● Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over
precluded from filing the appropriate charge against him before the person of the accused, and the crime was committed within its
the proper court.) territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction
over all issues that the law requires the court to resolve. One of
5. CARIAGA VS PEOPLE the issues in a criminal case is the civil liability of the accused
I: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the arising from the crime. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
RTC of Manila had jurisdiction to render judgment on the civil aspect of provides that [E]very person criminally liable for a felony is also
criminal case for falsification of public document, involving a property civilly liable. Article 104 of the same Code states that civil liability x
located in Bulacan- No. x x includes restitution.
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
criminal action unless reserved by the offended party. In the jurisdiction as herein provided. x xxx
instant case, the offended party did not reserve the civil action and ● It is unfortunate that the RTC judge concerned ordered
the civil action was deemed instituted in the criminal action. the pertinent records to be forwarded to the wrong court,
Although the trial court acquitted petitioner of the crime charged, to the great prejudice of petitioner. Cases involving
the acquittal, grounded on reasonable doubt, did not extinguish government employees with a salary grade lower than 27
the civil liability. Thus, the Manila trial court had jurisdiction to are fairly common, albeit regrettably so. The judge was
decide the civil aspect of the instant case - ordering restitution expected to know and should have known the law and the
even if the parcel of land is located in Bulacan. rules of procedure. He should have known when appeals
are to be taken to the CA and when they should be
6. DE LIMA VS GUERERRO forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. He should have
conscientiously and carefully observed this responsibility
7. DIZON VS PEOPLE especially in cases such as this where a person's liberty
I: Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner's Motion to was at stake. Indeed, the Court finds no reason why the
Endorse the case to the Sandiganbayan. (YES) same ruling should not be made in this case.
R: It is undisputed that petitioner is a low-ranking public officer ● As earlier mentioned, petitioner duly filed his appeal
having a salary grade below 27, whose appeal from the RTC's before the RTC, absent any indication that his case be
ruling convicting him of six counts of Malversation of Public Funds appealed to either the CA or the Sandiganbayan.
through Falsification of Public Documents falls within the appellate ● As noted in Ulep, since cases involving government
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, pursuant to Section 4 (c) of RA employees with a salary grade lower than 27 are fairly
8249 (prior to its amendment by RA 10660) which reads: Section common, the RTC was expected to know that petitioner's
4. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read case should have been appealed to the Sandiganbayan.
as follows: xxxx c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in ● Unfortunately, the records were wrongly transmitted by the
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in RTC to the CA. Petitioner, however, took the liberty to
1986. "In cases where none of the accused are occupying rectify this error by filing the Motion to Endorse, which the
positions corresponding to salary grade '27' or higher, as CA nonetheless denied pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of
prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP the Rules of Court. At any rate, the Court observes that
officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof petitioner had raised substantial arguments in his appeal,
shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial which altogether justify the relaxation of the rules.
court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court as the
case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided
in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. "The Sandiganbayan
shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
8. ANTIPORDA VS GARCHITOREN No. 4363,32 is explicit on which court has jurisdiction to try cases
PETITIONERS’ contentions: of written defamations, thus:
● That Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the ● The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
case because the original information did not allege that one of the defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
petitioners took advantage of his office. simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance [now,
● Similarly, they also contended that the Sandiganbayan had the Regional Trial Court] of the province or city where the libelous
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. article is printed and first published or where any of the offended
parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
I: WON the petitioner may validly challenge the jurisdiction over the offense xxx.
subject matter of the court - NO ● There is no need to make mention again that it is a court of first
R: It is undisputed the Sandiganbayan had territorial jurisdiction over the instance [now, the Regional Trial Court] that is specifically
case. There is also no question that the court acquired jurisdiction over the designated to try a libel case. Its language is categorical; its
person. The filing of a motion to quash is tantamount to a voluntary meaning is free from doubt. This is one of those statutory
submission to the court’s jurisdiction. provisions that leave no room for interpretation. All that is required
● The petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the is application. What the law ordains must then be followed. This
Sandiganbayan. It was they who challenged the jurisdiction of the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC over written
Regional Trial Court over the case when they asked for an defamations is echoed in Bocobo v. Estanislao,36 where the Court
affirmative relief from the Sandiganbayan. further declared that jurisdiction remains with the trial court even if
● It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the the libelous act is committed "by similar means,"37 and despite
jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his the fact that the phrase "by similar means" is not repeated in the
opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, latter portion of Article 360. In these cases, and in those that
repudiate of question that same jurisdiction. followed, the Court had been unwavering in its pronouncement
that the expanded jurisdiction of the municipal trial courts cannot
9. PEOPLE VS GO be exercised over libel cases.
● The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses
10. PEOPLE VS BENIPAYO committed in relation to (public) office, similar to the expansion of
I: Whether or not libel/written defamation cases are cognizable by the jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive
the Sandiganbayan. and original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless
R: NO. Uniformly applied is the familiar rule that the jurisdiction of of whether the offense is committed in relation to office. The broad
the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in and general phraseology of Section 4, Presidential Decree No.
force at the time of the institution of the action, unless a latter 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, cannot be construed
statute provides for a retroactive application thereof.30 Article 360 to have impliedly repealed, or even simply modified, such
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),31 as amended by Republic Act exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC.
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● Since jurisdiction over written defamations exclusively rests criminal offenders was committed in relation to the office of
in the RTC without qualification, it is unnecessary and futile petitioner Prudente Soller, whose office as Mayor is included in the
for the parties to argue on whether the crime is committed in enumeration in Section 4 (a) of P.D. 1606 as amended.
relation to office. Thus, the conclusion reached by the trial ● Although the petitioners were described as being all public
court that the respondent committed the alleged libelous acts officers, then being the Municipal Mayor, Municipal Health Officer,
in relation to his office as former COMELEC chair, and SPO II, PO I, Sanitary Inspector and Midwife, there was no
deprives it of jurisdiction to try the case, is, following the allegation that the offense of altering and suppressing the gunshot
above disquisition, gross error. wound of the victim with intent to impair the veracity, authenticity
and availability as evidence in the investigation of the criminal
11. SOLLER VS SB case for murder (Criminal Case No. 25521) or of giving false and
Petitioners’ Contentions: fabricated information in the autopsy report and police report to
● In the subject criminal cases, the Informations do not contain mislead the law enforcement agency and prevent the
factual averments showing that they committed the acts charged apprehension of the offender (Criminal Case No. 25522) was done
in relation to their office, i.e., the acts charged are intimately in the performance of official function.
connected with their respective offices and were perpetrated by ● Indeed the offenses defined in P.D. 1829 may be committed by
them while they were in the performance of their duties and any person whether a public officer or a private citizen, and
functions. accordingly public office is not an element of the offense.
Moreover, the Information in Criminal Case No. 25522 states that
I: Whether or not SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS the fabrication of information in the police and autopsy report
OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION would indicate that the victim was shot by Vincent Soller, the son
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT IT HAS of herein petitioners spouses Prudente and Preciosa Soller. Thus
JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN SUBJECT there is a categorical indication that the petitioners spouses Soller
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 25521 and 25522 had a personal motive to commit the offenses and they would
R: For failure to show in the informations that the charges were intimately have committed the offenses charged even if they did not
connected with the discharge of the official functions of accused Mayor respectively hold the position of Municipal Mayor or Municipal
Soller, the offenses charged in the subject criminal cases do not fall within Health Officer.
the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.
● In this case, the Informations subject of Criminal Cases Nos. 12. SERENA VS SB
25521 and 25522 quoted earlier, fail to allege that petitioners had Petitioner’s contention
committed the offenses charged in relation to their offices. Neither ● It has no jurisdiction over the crime of estafa. That Republic
are there specific allegations of facts to show the intimate Act (R.A.) No. 3019 enumerates the crimes or offenses over
relation/connection between the commission of the offense which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Estafa, not falling
charged and the discharge of official functions of the offenders, i.e. under Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 (Crimes Committed by Public
that the obstruction of and apprehension and prosecution of Officers) of the RPC.
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies. The jurisdiction is simply
jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her subject to the twin requirements that
capacity as UP student regent. She was not a public officer since (a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned
she merely represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and that
who held their positions in an ex officio capacity. She added that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.
she was a simple student and did not receive any salary as a
student regent. ● Her claim has no basis in law. It is P.D. No. 1606, as amended,
rather than R.A. No. 3019, as amended, that determines the
Ombudsman’s Answer jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
● Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606 clearly ● R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over
contains the catch-all phrase in relation to office, thus, the which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the charges of Estafa against ● In fine, the two statutes differ in that P.D. No. 1606 defines the
petitioner. jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan while R.A. No. 3019, as
● Serena was a public officer. As a member of the BOR, she had the amended, defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for
general powers of administration and exercised the corporate their penalties.
powers of UP. ● UP Student Reagent is a Public Officer.
● Compensation is not an essential part of public office. ● The Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers
Parenthetically, compensation has been interpreted to include enumerated in P.D. No.1606.
allowances. By this definition, petitioner was compensated. ● Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. 7975,
explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over
I: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa? – Yes Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities
Whether or not a UP student Regent is a Public Offiicer, and under the or educational institutions or foundations. Serena falls under
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan? - Yes this category.
● We held that while the first part of Section 4(A) covers only
R: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part
officials in relation to their office. specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may
not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express
Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads: Other offenses or felonies whether
provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court.
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.
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● It is only "in case of doubt on the existence of probable cause" that
RA 8369 - Family Courts Act the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence
1. PEOPLE VS DELA TORRE-YADAO within five days from notice. But that is not the case here.
I: Whether or not Judge Yadao gravely abused her discretion when she
dismissed the criminal actions on the ground of lack of probable cause and RA 8293 - Violation of Intellectual Property
barred the presentation of additional evidence in support of the 1. SAMSON VS DAWAY
prosecution’s motion for reconsideration. - NO I: Which court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases
R: Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional Trial for violation of intellectual property rights?
Court. – Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, R: The SC held that under Sec. 163 of the Intellectual Property
the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its Code (IPC), actions for unfair competition shall be brought before
supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws.
on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable The “existing law” contemplated in Section 163 of IPC is RA 166
cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the otherwise known as the Trademark Law.
accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the ● Sec 27 of the Trademark Law provides that jurisdiction
judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint over cases for infringement of registered marks, unfair
or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt competition, false designation of origin and false
on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to description or representation, is lodged with the Court of
present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue First Instance (now Regional Trial Court).
must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the ● Since RA 7691 is a general law and IPC in relation to
complaint of information. Trademark Law is a special law, the latter shall prevail.
● Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives the trial court three Actions for unfair competition therefore should be filed
options upon the filing of the criminal information: (1) dismiss the with the RTC. Jurisdiction conferred by a special law
case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable to Regional Trial Courts must prevail over that
cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and granted by a general law to Municipal Trial Courts.
(3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five
days from notice in case of doubt as to the existence of probable
cause. Court Martial
● But the option to order the prosecutor to present additional 1. GONZALES VS ABAYA
evidence is not mandatory. The court’s first option under the above Respondents’ contentions:
is for it to "immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record ● The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, counters that
clearly fails to establish probable cause." That is the situation R.A. No. 7055 specifies which offenses covered by the Articles of
here: the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable War are service-connected. These are violations of Articles 54 to
cause against the respondents. 70, 72 to 92, and 95 to 97. The law provides that violations of
these Articles are properly cognizable by the court martial. As the
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
charge against petitioners is violation of Article 96 which, under dishonor and disrespect to the military profession. In short,
R.A. No. 7055 is a service-connected offense, then it falls under the charge has a bearing on their professional conduct or
the jurisdiction of the court martial. behavior as military officers.
● Equally indicative of the service-connected nature of the offense is
I: Whether or not the Court Martial has jurisdiction over the case. the penalty prescribed for the same dismissal from the service
–YES CM HAS JURISDICTION imposable only by the military court. Such penalty is purely
R: Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055, quoted above, is clear and disciplinary in character, evidently intended to cleanse the
unambiguous. First, it lays down the general rule that members of military profession of misfits and to preserve the stringent standard
the AFP and other persons subject to military law, including of military discipline.
members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who ● Obviously, there is no merit in petitioners argument that they can
commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal no longer be charged before the court martial for violation of
Code (like coup detat), other special penal laws, or local Article 96 of the Articles of War because the same has been
ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court. Next, it declared by the RTC in its Order of February 11, 2004 as not
provides the exception to the general rule, i.e., where the civil service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the
court, before arraignment, has determined the offense to be alleged crime of coup detat, hence, triable by said court (RTC).
service-connected, then the offending soldier shall be tried ● The RTC, in making such declaration, practically amended the law
by a court martial. Lastly, the law states an exception to the which expressly vests in the court martial the jurisdiction over
exception, i.e., where the President of the Philippines, in the service-connected crimes or offenses. What the law has conferred
interest of justice, directs before arraignment that any such the court should not take away. It is only the Constitution or the
crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil court. law that bestows jurisdiction on the court, tribunal, body or officer
over the subject matter or nature of an action which can do so.
● The second paragraph of the same provision further identifies the ● And it is only through a constitutional amendment or legislative
service-connected crimes or offenses as limited to those enactment that such act can be done. The first and fundamental
defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 duty of the courts is merely to apply the law as they find it, not as
to 97 of the Articles of War. Violations of these specified Articles they like it to be. Evidently, such declaration by the RTC
are triable by court martial. This delineates the jurisdiction constitutes grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess
between the civil courts and the court martial over crimes or of jurisdiction and is, therefore, void.
offenses committed by military personnel.
● We hold that the offense for violation of Article 96 of the Articles of
War is service-connected. This is expressly provided in Section 1
(second paragraph) of R.A. No. 7055. It bears stressing that the
charge against the petitioners concerns the alleged violation of
their solemn oath as officers to defend the Constitution and the
duly-constituted authorities. Such violation allegedly caused
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
Jurisdiction determined by allegations in the Complaint or When Injunction may be issued to restrain criminal
Information prosecution
1. PEOPLE VS OCAYA 1. ARKONCEL VS CFI
I: Whether or not the respondent judge was correct in dismissing I: W/N DENIED OF DUE PROCESS
the case for alleged lack of jurisdiction based on the result of the R: That assertion is not correct. The truth is that in two subpoenas dated
evidence presented. – NO September 13 and 21, 1966 (containing the usual warning: "Fail not under
R: The Court finds that respondent judge committed a grave penalty of law") he was required to appear at the preliminary investigation.
abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing the case for alleged He did not appear at the scheduled hearings.
lack of jurisdiction on the mere basis of his totally wrong notion ● The hearing set for September 29, 1966 was postponed at the
that what governs in the filing of a physical injury case is the instance of Atty. Engracio S. Bautista, a land investigator of the
medical certificate regarding the duration of treatment and "not Zamboanga City office of the Board of Liquidators, who
what the victim declares because the same is self-serving." presumably appeared for Arkoncel. Atty. Bautista informed the
● The jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined Fiscal that he had requested the Manila office of the Board of
by the allegations of the information or criminal complaint Liquidators to furnish him certain data relevant to the case.
and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial, ● The hearing was postponed for three weeks. After the expiration
much less by the trial judge’s personal appraisal of the of that period Arkoncel and Bautista did not get in touch with the
affidavits and exhibits attached by the fiscal to the record Fiscal. He filed the information in October, 1966. The issue is
of the case without hearing the parties and their witnesses whether Arkoncel's prosecution can be enjoined. We hold that this
nor receiving their evidence at a proper trial. case falls within the general rule that injunction or prohibition does
● Also, the mere fact that evidence presented at the trial not lie to restrain a criminal prosecution. It does not fall within the
would indicate that a lesser offense outside the trial court’s exceptions where the prosecution may be enjoined (a) for the
jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial court orderly administration of justice, (b) to prevent the use of the
of its jurisdiction which had vested in it under the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner, (c)
allegations of the information as filed since" (once) the to avoid multiplicity of actions, (d) to afford adequate protection to
jurisdiction attaches to the person and subject matter of constitutional rights, and (e) where the statute relied upon is
the litigation, the subsequent happening of events, unconstitutional or was declared void (Hernandez vs. Albano)
although they are of such a character as would have ● The reason for the general rule is that the accused has an
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, adequate remedy at law by establishing as a defense to the
will not operate to oust jurisdiction already attached. prosecution that he did not commit the act charged, or that the
statute, on which the prosecution is based, is void, and, in case of
conviction, be taking an appeal (Gorospe vs. Peñaflorida, 101
Phil. 886).
● Public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society
 CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
(Nicomedes vs. Chief of Constabulary, 110 Phil. 52; Griñen vs. offenses. In City of Manila v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo, the Court ruled
Consolacion, 115 Phil. 697). There is another reason which that the CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari
justifies the dismissal of the petition. Arkoncel did not exhaust his via express constitutional mandate and for being inherent in the
remedies. exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, it can also be reasonably
● He did not raise in the lower court the alleged lack of due process. concluded based on the same premise that the CTA has original
He came to this Court without first filing in the lower court a motion jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ
to quash or asking for a reinvestigation. His contention in this resolution in a preliminary investigation involving tax and tariff
Court that his prosecution was merely an act of harassment, while offenses.
he was in the lawful performance of his duties as a government ● As the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari solely due to a
officer, is a factual allegation that has no basis in the record. It is procedural defect (non-submission of the certification against
controverted by the respondents. forum shopping) without resolving the issue of whether or not the
● He should have raised that issue in the lower court. The rule is Acting Secretary of Justice gravely abused her discretion in
that in a preliminary investigation conducted by the provincial or affirming the dismissal of the BOC's complaint-affidavit for lack of
city fiscal, or state attorney, it is sufficient if the accused was given probable cause, the Court ought to reinstate the petition and refer
a chance to be heard (Sec. 14, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court). In it to the CTA for proper disposition.
this case, Arkoncel was afforded an opportunity to appear at the ● Be that as it may, the Court stressed in The Diocese of Bacolod v.
preliminary investigation. He waived his appearance. A Commission on Elections that the doctrine of hierarchy of
"preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without courts is not an iron-clad rule, and that it has full discretionary
infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over
process clause to a fair trial" (Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640). special civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it for
exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the
2. SAMSON VS GUINGONA nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the
I: Whether or not the CTA has the jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari petition. One of the recognized exceptions to the said is when the
assailing the DOJ resolution in a preliminary investigation involving tax and petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and
tariff offenses. the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader
R: Yes, the CTA has jurisdiction over petition for certiorari of DOJ interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be
resolutions. HOWEVER, by reason of justice, the mistake in the filing in patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an
the CA may be excused. inappropriate remedy. Since the present case includes questions
● Under R.A. No. 9282, amending R.A. No. 1125, it expanded the that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public
jurisdiction of the CTA, enlarging its membership and elevating its policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, as well as
rank to the level of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction. It is to avoid multiplicity of suits and further delay in its disposition, the
no longer clear which between the CA and the CTA has Court shall directly resolve the petition for certiorari, instead of
jurisdiction to review through a petition for certiorari the DOJ referring it to the CTA.
resolution in preliminary investigations involving tax and tariff