Criminal Procedure

Article 3 Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the

Philippines states that: “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
// houses, papers, and effects // against unreasonable search and seizures, // of
whatever nature and // for any purpose shall be inviolable, // and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest // shall issue except upon probable cause // to be
determined personally by the judge // after examination under oath, // or
affirmation of the complainant, // and the witnesses he may produce, // and
particularly describing the place to be searched // and the persons or things to
be seized. (Memorize)

General Matters(SYLLABUS)
 Distinguish jurisdiction over subject the matter from jurisdiction over the
person of the accused. (CrimPro by Riano)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the authority of the court to hear
and determine a particular criminal case. One case, Antiporda, Jr. v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551, mandates that the offense is one which the
court is by law authorized to take cognizance of.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused refers to the authority of the
court, not over the subject matter of the criminal litigation, but over the
person charged. This kind of jurisdiction requires that "the person charged
with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by
warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court" (Antiporda v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 72;
Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367).

 Requisites for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. (CrimPro by Riano)

A reading of jurisprudence and treatises on the matter discloses the following

basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases
(Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 72):
(a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) Jurisdiction over the territory; and
(c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

 Jurisdiction of criminal courts.(Internet)

Criminal Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court(MTCC), Municipal

Circuit Trial Court(MCTC), Metropolitan Trial Court(METC):
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal
ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction.
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six(6) years irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other imposable or accessory penalties.
3. Where the only penalty is fine
4. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence
5. Violations of B.P. 226.
6. Summary procedure in certain cases
7. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail in criminal cases in
the absence ofall RTC judges in a province
8. Election offenses

Criminal Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in criminal cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those falling under the
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
 2. Original Jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quowarranto, habeas corpus, and injunction.
3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
MTCs in their respective territorial jurisdiction
4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to handle exclusively criminal
cases
5. Jurisdiction over all criminal cases under special laws:
 Written Defamation
 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. RA 9165
 Intellectual Property Rights
 Money Laundering
 The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Rights – PD 957

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals:

1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,
whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of
Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions,
orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus against the CA and Sandiganbayan.
2. Concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the Regional Trial Court.
3. Concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and Regional
Trial Courts overpetitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the
lower courts.
4. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all criminal cases involving offenses
for which the penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and those
involving other offenses which, although not so punished, arose out of the
same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on
the same occasion.
5. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over petition for review on certiorari from
the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, and Sandiganbayan.

Jurisdiction of the Katarungan Pambarangay

1. All disputes, civil and criminal in nature where parties actually reside
in the same city or municipality are subjected to proceedings of amicable
settlement.

 When injunction may be issued to restrain criminal prosecution. (CrimPro by

Riano)

Injunction To Restrain Criminal Prosecution (Bar 1999)

As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction
preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal prosecution. With more
reason will injunction not lie when the case is still at the stage of preliminary
investigation or reinvestigation. However, in extreme cases, the Court laid
the following exceptions:
(1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused;
(2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions;
(3) when there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice;
(4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
 (5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
(6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance; and
(10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
motion to quash on that ground has been denied

Civil Actions vs. Criminal Actions (CrimPro by Riano)

Criminal Actions vs. Civil Actions

The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in
order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to
isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to
maintain social order. On the other hand, the sole purpose of the civil action
is for the resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended
party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or
felonious act of the accused. The sole purpose of the civil action is for the
resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the
damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of
the accused (Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, February 9,2007).

Elements of Criminal Jurisdictions (Internet)

1. Nature of the offense and the penalty attached thereto
2. Fact that the offense has been committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court

Territorial Jurisdiction (CrimPro by Riano)

Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed
therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory
and if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction (Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No.
167764, October 9, 2009). It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an
essential element of jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of a court over a
criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the
information (Campanano, Jr. v. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471; Macasaet v. People,
452 SCRA 255).

Requisites for Exercises for Criminal Procedure(CrimPro by Riano)

A reading of jurisprudence and treatises on the matter

discloses the following basic requisites before a court can
acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases(Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, 388 SCRA 72):

(a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;

1. Generally, jurisdictionis the right to act or the power and authority

to hear and determine a cause —it is a question of law (Gomez v. Montalban,
548 SCRA 693). The term imports the power and authority to hear and
determine issues of facts and of law, the power to inquire into the facts, to
apply the law and to pronounce the judgment(21 C.J.S., Courts, § 2, 1990).
Specifically, criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a
particular offense and impose the punishment for it (Antiporda, Jr. v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551).
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question
belongs(Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil 484). It is the power to
deal with the general subject involved in the action, and means not simply
jurisdiction over the particular case then occupying the attention of the court
but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs (21
C.J.S., Courts, § 10,1990).

(b) Jurisdiction over the territory; and

1. This element requires that the offense must have been committed
within the court's territorial jurisdiction (An- tiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321
SCRA 551). This fact is to be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint
or
information as regards the place where the offense charged was committed
(Fullero v. People, 533 SCRA 97).

In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was committed or
where anyone of the essential ingredients took place. Hence, if any one of
these elements is proven to have occurred, let us say, in Pasay City, the
proper
court in that city has jurisdiction (Barrameda v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA
477).

2. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.

Hence, for jurisdiction to be acquired by a court in a criminal case, the
offense
should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should
have
taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is in that court
where the criminal action shall be instituted (Sec. 15 [a], Rule 110, Rules of
Court; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9,2009).

3. It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an essential element of

jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The rule that
the criminal action be instituted and tried in the court of the territory where
the
offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred is a
fundamental principle, the purpose of which is not to compel the defendant
to
move to, and appear in, a different court from that of the province where the
crime was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking
for
his witnesses and other evidence in another place (Campanano, Jr. v. Datuin,
536 SCRA 471, October 17, 2007; Bonifacio, et al. v. Regional Trial Court
ofMakati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010).

4. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the

court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited
territory and if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense
was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want
of jurisdiction (Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No.
167764, October 9, 2009). It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an
essential element of jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction of a court over a
criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the
information (Campanano, Jr. v. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471; Macasaet v. People,
452 SCRA 255).
5. The concept of venue in actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil
cases, is jurisdictional — for jurisdiction to be acquired in criminal cases, the
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court (Isip v.
People, 525 SCRA 735). Similarly, it has been held that the RTC of Manila has
no authority to issue a search warrant for offenses committed in Cavite (Sony
Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Supergreen, Inc., 518 SCRA 750).

(c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

1. It was held that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired
upon his arrest or apprehension, with or without a warrant, or his voluntary
appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court (Valdepehas v.
People, 16 SCRA 871; Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4).

As a general rule, seeking affirmative relief is deemed to be a submission

to the jurisdiction of the court (Sapugay v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 464).
The voluntary submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court may
be
effected by filing a motion to quash, appearing for arraignment, participating
in the trial or by giving bail (Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633; Antiporda,
Jr. v.
Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377).

2. The assertion that the court never acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused because the warrant of arrest issued is null and void
because no probable cause was found by the court issuing it, cannot be
sustained because he posted a bail. The giving or posting of a bail by the
accused is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the
court. Even if it is conceded that the warrant issued was void, the defendant
waived all his rights to object by appearing and giving a bond (Cojuangco, Jr.
v.
Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367; Velasco v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677).
Note: To be read in relation to Sec. 26 of Rule 114).

By submitting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court as shown by

entering into a counsel-assisted plea, the active participation in the trial and
presenting evidence for the defense, the accused is deemed to have waived
his constitutional protection against illegal arrest (People v. Rivera, G.R. No.
177741, August 27,2009).

3. However, not all acts seeking affirmative relief would constitute a

voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Making a
special appearance in court to question the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the accused is not a voluntary appearance as when in a criminal
case
a motion to quash is filed precisely on that ground. There is likewise no
submission to the jurisdiction of the court when the accused files a motion to
quash the warrant of arrest because it is the very legality of the court process
forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in a
motion to quash a warrant of arrest (Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763,
March 31,2006).

4. Being in the custody of the law is not necessarily being under the
jurisdiction of the court. "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, as when an accused
escapes
custody after his trial has commenced. 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. Custody of the law is
literally custody over the body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited
to,
detention" (Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006).

Definition of Criminal Procedure(CrimPro by Riano)

Concept of criminal procedure

1. Criminal procedure treats of the series of processes by which the

criminal laws are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who
violate the penal laws. In the clear language of the Court, criminal procedure
"regulates the steps by which one who committed a crime is to be punished"
(People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267).
While criminal laws define crimes and prescribe punishment for such
crimes, criminal procedure lays down the processes by which an offender is
made to answer for the violation of the criminal laws.

2. Criminal procedure is "a generic term to describe the network of

laws and rules which governs the procedural administration of justice"
(Black's
Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1979). The procedure starts with the initial
contact of the alleged lawbreaker with the justice machinery including the
investigation of the crime and concludes either with a judgment exonerating
the accused or the final imposition of a penalty against him.

3. The enforcement of the criminal laws of the state inevitably leads

to governmental intrusions into an individual's zones of privacy and how
these
intrusions can be reconciled with constitutional and statutory tenets
protecting
individual rights is an inescapable theme tackled in criminal procedure. Thus,
in the prosecution for the violation of the penal laws, criminal procedure has
the imposing task of balancing clashing societal interests primarily between
those of the government and those of the individual. Hence, a common
thread among innumerable treatises on the subject is the tendency to
describe criminal procedure in relation to its ultimate goal of harmonizing the
governmental functions of maintaining and promoting law and order law
while at the same time protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.

System of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines(CrimPro by Riano)

The adversarial or accusatorial system

1. The system of procedure in our jurisdiction is accusatorial or adversarial. It

contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears them
impartially and renders judgment only after trial (Queto v. Catolico, 31 SCRA
52).

The system has a two-sided structure consisting of the prosecution and

the defense where each side tries to convince the court that its position is the
 correct version of the truth. In this system, the accusation starts with a formal
indictment called in our jurisdiction as a complaint or an information, the
allegations of which must be proven by the government beyond reasonable
doubt. The government and the accused present their evidence before the
court which shall decide either on acquittal or conviction of the accused. In its
decision-making process, that court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The court in this system therefore, has a passive role
and relies largely on the evidence presented by both sides to the action in
order to reach a verdict.

2. The adversarial system should be distinguished from the inquisitorial

system where the court plays a very active role and is not limited to the
evidence presented before it. The court may utilize evidence gathered
outside the court and a judge or a group of judges under this system actively
participates in the gathering of facts and evidence instead of mere passively
receiving information or evidence from the parties. The judge steers the
course of the proceedings by directing and supervising the gathering of the
evidence and the questioning of the witnesses to the case. The counsels in
the inquisitorial system have a less active role than in the adversarial system.

Sources of Criminal Procedure(Internet)

The sources include;

(1)the Philippine Constitution,
(2)the Rules of Court,
(3)relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
(4)specific laws or statutes relating to criminal procedure, and
(5)jurisprudence or decisions of the Supreme Court.

RULE 126 (AUG. 24 MEETING)(INTERNET)

Search and Seizure

Section 1. Search warrant defined.// — A search warrant is an order in writing //

issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, // signed by a judge and
directed to a peace officer, // commanding him to search for personal property //
described therein and bring it before the court. // (1)(Memorize)

Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. — An

application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime
is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be
made in the court where the criminal action is pending. (n)

Section 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may be issued for

the search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. (2a)

Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. // — A search warrant shall not
issue except upon probable cause // in connection with one specific offense // to be
determined personally by the judge // after examination under oath // or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, // and particularly describing
the place to be searched // and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in
the Philippines. // (3a)(Memorize)
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before issuing
the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together
with the affidavits submitted. (4a)

Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. — If the judge is satisfied of the
existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable
cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be
substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. (5a)

Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if refused
admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and
authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part
of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any
person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. (6)

Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two

witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made
except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family
or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
residing in the same locality. (7a)

Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must direct that it be served in
the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the
place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be
served at any time of the day or night. (8)

Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant shall be valid for ten
(10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. (9a)

Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer seizing property under
the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the
premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of
such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he
found the seized property. (10a)

Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and
proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to
the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly
verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall
ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to
whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. If
the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule
has been complained with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to
him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the
log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the
result, and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.(11a)

Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. (12a)

Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to

file. — A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained
thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been
instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and
resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court failed
to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequent filed in another court, the
motion shall be resolved by the latter court. (n)