READING MATERIALS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

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. It regulates the steps by which one who
committed a crime is to be punished. (People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, 01 Apr. 2003)

It 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)

CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

That branch or division of law which defines Lays down the procedure by which an offender is made
crimes, treats of their nature, and provides to answer for violation of the criminal laws. (Riano,
for their punishment. (Reyes, 2008, citing 12 2019)
Cyc. 129)

Due Process in Criminal Proceeding

Due process in criminal proceeding is mandatory and indispensable. It cannot be met without “a law
which hears before it condemns as well as proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only
after trial.”

Requirements of Due Process in a Criminal Proceeding

1. Court or tribunal is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the accused;
3. That the accused is given the opportunity to be heard; and
4. That judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing. (Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., G.R. No. 131652, 09 Mar.
1998)

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION; CONCEPT AND REQUISITES OF EXERCISE

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. Jurisdiction over the territory; and
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular
criminal case. It is, in simple terms, jurisdiction over the offense charged. (Riano, 2019)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which
the proceedings in question belong. (Bernabe v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652, 16 Sep. 1942)

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.

How Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter is Conferred

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law (Durisol Philippines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 121106, 20
Feb. 2000). It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of
the parties. It cannot be conferred upon by the accused, express waiver or otherwise, since the jurisdiction
is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court and is given only by law in the manner
and form prescribed by law (Fukuzume v. People, G.R. No. 143647, 11 Nov. 2005). It is not conferred by a
mere administrative policy of any trial court. (Cudia v. CA, G.R. No. 110315, 16 Jan. 1998)

How Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter is Determined

While jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law, jurisdiction over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the
filing of complaint or information (Asistio v. People, G.R. No. 200465, 20 Apr. 2015). It is the averments in
the information which characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried.
(Pangilinan v. CA, G.R. No. 117363, 17 Dec. 1999)

In determining whether the court has jurisdiction over an offense, the penalty which may be imposed upon
the accused and not the actual penalty imposed after the trial shall be considered. (People v. Savellano,
G.R. No. L-39951, 09 Sep. 1982)

JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY

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, as amended; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No.
167764, 09 Oct. 2009; Brodeth v. People, G.R. No. 197849, 29 Nov. 2017).

Stated otherwise, in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v.
Romars International Gases Corporation, G.R. No. 189669, 16 Feb. 2015)

PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

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. (Valdepenas v. People,
G.R. No. L-20687, 30 Apr. 1966)
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is
accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings
requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by
filing bail. (David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, 18 Mar. 2015)

Custody of the Law

Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail but is not required for
the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a
waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (Ibid.)

Custody of the Law vs. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. 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. 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. (Ibid.)

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED
The authority of the court to hear and The authority of the court over the person charged.
determine a particular criminal case. This
simply means jurisdiction over the offense
charged.
Mandates that the offense is one which the Requires that the person be brought into its forum by:
court is, by law, authorized to take cognizance 1. Arrest, with or without a warrant; or
of. 2. GR: Voluntary submission the jurisdiction of the court.
XPN: Making special appearance in court to question
the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
accused. (Miranda vs. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 Mar.
2006)

Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction or Continuing Jurisdiction

GR: Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a controversy, it shall continue to exercise such jurisdiction
until the final determination of the case and the same is not affected by the subsequent legislation vesting
jurisdiction over such proceeding in another tribunal.

XPNs:
1. When the statute expressly so provides; or
2. When the statute is clearly intended to apply to pending actions.

Dismissal on Jurisdictional Grounds

GR: An objection on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised or
considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceeding or appeal.

XPN: A party may be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the court by reasons of public policy as
when he initially invokes the jurisdiction of the court and later on repudiates that jurisdiction. (Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 15 Apr. 1968)

CUSTODY OF LAW JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON

Required before the court can act upon the Required for the adjudication of reliefs.
application for bail.
Accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender. Acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
appearance.
A person can be under the custody of the law but not A person can be subject to the jurisdiction
yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his of the court over his person, and yet not be
person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of in the custody of the law, such as when an
a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash accused escapes custody after his trial has
the warrant. (Miranda vs. Tuliao, supra) commenced.

JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS

I. Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC) and Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
Except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the Sandiganbayan:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within
their respective territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 32(1), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691);
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable or accessory penalties (Sec.
32(2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691);
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence (Sec. 32(2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691);
4. Summary procedure in certain cases; and

NOTE: The MTCs shall have jurisdiction over the following cases falling within their jurisdiction:
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
b. Violations of the rental law;
c. B.P. 22 cases;
d. Violations of municipal and city ordinances;
e. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1, 000.00, or both; and
f. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable penalty
does not exceed P10, 000.00. (Sec. 1 [b](b)(4), 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure);
g. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail in the absence of all RTC judges in a province
or city. (Sec. 35, B.P. No. 129)

NOTE: Jurisdiction of MTC is qualified by the phrase “Except in cases falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the RTC and of the Sandiganbayan”. Hence not all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years shall be under the jurisdiction of MTC. (Riano, 2019)

II. Regional Trial Court (RTC)

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan (Sec. 20, B.P. No. 129);
2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus, and injunction, enforceable in any part of their respective regions (Sec. 21(1), B.P.
No. 129);
3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 22,
B.P. No. 129);
4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to handle exclusively criminal cases as may be determined
by the Supreme Court (Sec. 23, B.P. No. 129); and
5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws such as:
a. Criminal and civil aspects of written defamation (Art. 360, RPC);
b. Designated special courts over cases in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002 (Sec. 90, R.A. No. 9165);
c. Violation of intellectual property rights (A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC); and
d. All cases on money laundering. (Sec. 5, R.A.

In February 2023, the DOJ issued Circulars No. 008 s. 2023 and 008-A s. 2023 directing all public
prosecutors handling criminal cases for offenses cognizable by the Municipal Trial Courts or MTCs,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities or MTCCs, and Metropolitan Trial Courts or MeTCs to determine if each has a
reasonable certainty of conviction based on the evidence, witnesses, and continued interest of the private
complainants, and to withdraw the information if there is none.

“Reasonable certainty of conviction” is expressly defined in DOJ Circular No. 016 s.2023 as follows:

Section 2. Reasonable Certainty of Conviction. There is reasonable certainty of conviction when a prima
facie case exists based on the evidence at hand, including but not limited to, witnesses, documentary
evidence, real evidence, and the like, and such evidence, that on its own and if left uncontroverted by the
accused, shall be sufficient to establish all the elements of the crime or offense charged, and consequently
warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

B. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

(RULE 110)
SECTION 1. CRIMINAL ACTIONS, HOW INSTITUTED
Criminal Action
One by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.
Criminal actions are instituted by:

1. Where preliminary investigation is required – filing the complaint with the proper officer for the
purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation (Sec. 1, Rule 110, Rules of Court, as
amended); or
2. For all other offenses – filing the complaint or information directly with the MTC and MCTC, or the
complaint with the office of the prosecutor. (Ibid.)
NOTE: There is no direct filing of an information or complaint with the RTC because its jurisdiction covers
offenses which require preliminary investigation.

There is likewise no direct filing with the MeTC because in Metro Manila and other chartered cities, the
complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor, unless otherwise provided by their charters. In
case of conflict between a city charter and a provision of the Rules of Court, the former, being substantive
law, prevails.

What is the effect of the institution of the criminal action?

It shall interrupt the running of the prescriptive period of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in
special laws. (S1 R110).

The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information. (Art. 91, Revised Penal Code).

Q. The accused was charged with violating a municipal ordinance by quarrying without a permit on 11 May
1990 in Rodriguez, Rizal. A complaint was filed by the police with the prosecutor's office on 30 May 1990
but the corresponding information was filed with the municipal trial court only on 2 October 1990. The
accused filed a motion to quash on the ground of prescription, pointing out that under Act No. 3326,
violations penalized by ordinances shall prescribe after two months from the commission of the offense
and the information was filed in court after more than 60 days from its commission. The prosecution on the
other hand argued that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office interrupted the running of
the prescriptive period pursuant to S1 R110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Should the motion to quash
be granted?

SECTION 2. COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

The complaint/information shall be in writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and
against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.

SECTION 3. COMPLAINT DEFINED

A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.

SECTION 4. INFORMATION DEFINED

An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
prosecutor and filed with the court.

SECTION 5. Who can prosecute criminal actions?

All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the public prosecutor. (SS R 110).

XPNs: PRIVATE CRIMES

crimes or offenses which cannot be prosecuted except on complaint filed by the offended party or, if the
offended party is a minor, by the parents, grandparents or the guardian. These crimes are:
1. Adultery and concubinage;
2. Seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness; and
3. Criminal actions for defamation imputing the abovementioned offenses. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC,
as amended)

a. Party who may legally file a complaint for adultery or concubinage

Only the offended spouse may file a complaint for adultery or concubinage. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC,
as amended)

Q. What is the crime of concubinage?

A. Concubinage is the crime committed by any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his
wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
(Article 334, Revised Penal Code).

Q. Husband 1 of Wife 1 is having an affair with Wife 2 of Husband 2. Both Husband 1 and Wife
2 are aware of each other's married status. Wife 1 wants to file a criminal complaint for
adultery. May she file the complaint against Wife 2 only?

Q. Same facts as above except that it will be Husband 2 who will be filing the criminal
complaint for adultery. Can Husband 2 file the complaint against Husband 1 only? ,

b. Parties who may file a complaint for seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness
1. The offended party;
2. Parents of the offended party;
3. Grandparents of the offended party; or
4. Guardian of the offended party (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Such crimes cannot be prosecuted if the offender has been expressly pardoned by any of the
abovementioned parties. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)

Filing a Complaint by a Minor for Seduction, Abduction, or Acts of Lasciviousness

GR: The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of such offenses
independently of the said offended party’s parents, grandparents or guardian.
XPNs: If the minor is:
1. Incompetent; or
2. Incapable of doing so. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)

NOTE: If the minor fails to file a complaint, the said minor’s parents, grandparents or guardian may file the
same. The right granted to the latter shall be exclusive and successive in the order herein provided. (Sec.
5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)

Q: Fey, a minor orphan, was subjected to acts of lasciviousness performed by her uncle Polo.
She informed her grandparents but was told not to file charges.
a. Fey now asks you how she could make her uncle liable. What would your advice be?
Explain.

b. Suppose the crime committed against Fey by her uncle is rape, witnessed by your
mutual friend Isay. But this time, Fey was prevailed upon by her grandparents not to file
charges. Isay asks you if she can initiate the complaint against Polo. Would your answer
be the same? Explain.

Instances when the State may Initiate the Action for Seduction, Abduction or Acts of
Lasciviousness on behalf of the Offended Party
1. When the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before a complaint is filed; or
2. The offended party has no known parents, grandparents or guardian. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)

NOTE: This is pursuant to the doctrine of parens patriae.

Q. The sworn statement of the offended party charging the accused with abduction was signed
by her in the office of the chief of police. The chief of police then filed the complaint affidavit
with the office of the prosecutor who after preliminary investigation filed the information. The
accused filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction assailing both the
complaint of the chief of police and the information filed by the assistant provincial prosecutor
as being insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Should the motion to quash be
granted?

Persons who may File a Complaint on Cases of Unlawful Acts in R.A. No. 7610 (Special
Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
1. Offended party;
2. Parents or guardians;
3. Ascendant or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity;
4. Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution;
5. Officer or social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development;
6. Barangay Chairman; or
7. At least 3 concerned, responsible citizens where the violation occurred. (Sec. 27, R.A. No. 7610)

Q. If the prosecution of the above crimes was made by an information filed by the prosecutor
rather than by a complaint by the offended party, may the information be quashed? If so, on
what ground?

Effect of Pardon on the Criminal Liability

The crimes of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness cannot be prosecuted if the offender has
been expressly pardoned by any of the persons authorized to file a complaint under Sec. 5 of Rule 110 of
the Rules of Court.

NOTE: In case where the offended party is a minor, the pardon to be effective, as to prevent prosecution
of the accused, must be given by both parents and the offended party. (U.S. v. Luna, G.R. No. 892, 11 Sep.
1902)

May a private lawyer prosecute a criminal case?

A. Yes, a private lawyer (i.e., a private prosecutor) may prosecute a criminal case in the following
situations:
a) When the civil action for recovery of the civil liability is instituted in the criminal action
pursuant to R111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the
offense. (S16 R110). Nevertheless, the private prosecutor must be under the direction and
control of the public prosecutor who hence must be present during the proceedings.
b) In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public
prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
 approval of the court. Once so authorized, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute
the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of the public prosecutor, unless the
authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. (S5 R110).

Q. Jeffrey "Jennifer" Laude was killed in Olongapo City by US Marine Lance Corporal Joseph
Scott Pemberton. Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement, Pemberton was detained in
Camp Aguinaldo. Marilou S. Laude, Jeffrey's sister, filed an Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed
Forces of the Philippines to Surrender Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail. The
motion did not contain the written conformity of the Public Prosecutor and for that reason was
denied by the RTC of Olongapo City. Was the denial correct?

Q: Josefa married Amado when she was just 16 years old. Prior to a declaration of nullity of her
previous marriage with Amado, Josefa contracted another marriage with Lorenzo Bumatay.
Jana, a foster daughter of Lorenzo, filed a complaint against Josefa before the RTC alleging
that when Josefa married Lorenzo, she knows fully well that her first marriage with her first
husband Amado, who is still living, has not been legally dissolved. Amado subsequently died.
Therefore, Josefa sought to nullify her first marriage with Amado. The RTC granted the petition
and declared her first marriage null and void. She filed a Motion to Quash the Information
regarding the Bigamy case filed against her. The RTC decided in her favor and dismissed the
case. Jana, feeling aggrieved, appealed the same to the CA but the latter court dismissed the
same. Hence, Jana filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the SC. Is Janna
correct?

Prescription of the authority of the private prosecutor

The authority of the private prosecutor shall continue until the end of the trial unless the authority is
revoked or withdrawn. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended).

SECTION 6. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

A complaint or information is deemed sufficient if it contains the following:

1. Name of the accused, if the offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be
included in the complaint or information;
2. Designation of the offense given by the statute;
3. Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
4. Name of the offended party;
5. Approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
6. Place where the offense was committed (Sec. 6, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)

INFORMATION COMPLAINT
An accusation in writing charging a person A sworn written statement charging a person with an
with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace
and filed by him with the court. (Sec. 4, Rule officer, or other public officer charged with the
110, ROC, as amended) enforcement of the law violated. (Sec. 3, Rule 110,
ROC, as amended)
Requires no oath because the prosecutor filing Must be “sworn,” hence under oath.
the information is acting under the oath of his
office.
Subscribed by the prosecutor. Subscribed by:
a) Offended party;
b) Peace officer; or
c) Other public officer charged with the enforcement
of the law violated.
Mistake in the name of the accused
A mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent and does not necessarily amount to a mistake in
the identity of the accused especially when sufficient evidence is adduced to show that the accused is
pointed to as one of the perpetrators of the crime. (People v. Amodia, G.R. No. 173791, 07 Apr. 2009)

SECTION 7. NAME OF THE ACCUSED

The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the persons against whom or
against whose property the offense was committed or any appellation or nickname by which such person
has been or is known and if there is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a
fictitious name.

SECTION 8. DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE

Q. How shall the complaint or information designate the offense?

Q: Accused was charged with the offense of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents
under Art. 315 in relation to Art. 171 of the RPC in an information filed by the prosecutor
before the RTC of Quezon City. Accused assailed the information claiming that the information
is invalid because the word "fraud" or "deceit" was not alleged in the information. Decide the
case.

SECTION 9. CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION

 The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used
in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what the
offense is being charged as well as the qualifying and aggravating circumstances. (Sec. 9, Rule 110, ROC,
as amended)

Purposes of requiring that every element must be alleged

1. To enable the court to pronounce the proper judgment;
2. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge as to enable him to make a defense;
and
3. As a protection against further prosecution for the same cause. (Herrera, 2007)

Q. Police officer Roxas was charged with murder. The information did not allege dwelling but
the same was proved during the trial. In imposing the death penalty, the trial court
appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Did the trial court act properly in
appreciating the aggravating circumstance of dwelling?

Q. Petitioner was charged with qualified theft in an information which alleged that the crime
was committed "sometime in the month of October 2001." The proof adduced during the trial
showed that the crime was committed in November 2001. Was the Petitioner's right to be
informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him violated?

Q. An information for illegal sale of dangerous drugs was filed against the accused the
accusatory portion of which reads as follows:

That on or about 12:15 in the early dawn of July 5, 2011 in Brgy. Malindong, Binmaley,
Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did,
then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu", a
dangerous drug, without any authority to sell the same.

Contrary to Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165. Can the accused be convicted of the violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under such an information?

Effect when one or more elements of the offense have NOT been alleged in the Information
The accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged, even if the missing elements have been proved
during the trial. Even the accused’s plea of guilty to such defective information will not cure the defect, nor
justify his conviction of the offense charged.

Statement of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances in the Information

The qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specified in the information. They must not only be
proven but they must also be alleged, otherwise, they should not be considered. (Catiis v. CA, G.R. No.
153979, 06 Feb. 2006)

SECTION 13 DUPLICITY OF OFFENSE

GR: A complaint or information must charge only one offense.
XPN: When the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses (Sec. 13, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended):
1. Complex crimes;
2. Special complex crimes;
3. Continuous crimes or delito continuado;
4. Crimes susceptible of being committed in various modes; and
5. Crimes of which another offense is an ingredient.

NOTE: Should there be duplicity of offense in the information, the accused must move for the quashal of
the same before arraignment. (Sec. 3, Rule 117, ROC, as amended) Otherwise, he or she is deemed to
have waived the objection and may be found guilty of as many offenses as those charged and proved
during the trial. (Sec. 3, Rule 120, ROC, as amended)

Q. Can a complaint or information charge more than one offense?

A. No, a complaint or information must charge only one offense. (S13 R110). A duplicitous or multiplicitous
complaint or information may be quashed upon motion. (S3[f] R 117).

Q. What is the rationale for the rule prohibiting duplicitous or multiplicitous complaints or information?
A. The rationale for the rule is to give the defendant - the necessary knowledge of the charge to- enable
him to prepare his defense. The State should not heap upon the defendant two or more charges which
might confuse him in his defense. (People v. Manalili, 294 SCRA 220).

SECTION 14 AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION

KIND OF AMENDMENT TO BE MADE HOW AMENDMENT IS MADE

Before plea
1. Formal amendment; or Without leave of court
2. Substantial amendment.
Substantial amendment which: 1. Upon a motion by the prosecutor;
a. Downgrades the nature of the offense charged; 2. With notice to the accused; and
or 3. With leave of court.
b. Excludes any accused from the complaint or
information
After plea and during the trial
Formal Amendment 1. With leave of court; and
2. Without causing prejudice to the rights of the
accused. (Sec. 14, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)

Substantial Amendment GR: Not allowed

XPN: If the amendment is beneficial to the
accused. (Riano, 2019 citing Ricarze v. CA, 515
Matters subject to amendment
Only valid information may be amended. An information filed before the effectivity of the law
punishing the offense may not be amended after the law had come into effect. (Herrera, 2007)

Q. What is an amendment of a complaint or information?

A. An amendment of a complaint or information is the adding or striking out or the correction of an
allegation or the name of any party. (ASCAN)

Q. An information for homicide was filed in the RTC against Danilo Buhat, "John Doe" and
"Richard Doe". The information alleged that on 16 October 1992, Danilo Buhat, armed with a
knife, unlawfully attacked and killed one Ramon George Yu while the said two unknown
assailants held his arms, "using superior strength, inflicting mortal wounds which were the
direct cause of his death." Buhat was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the
prosecution moved to amend the information by changing the designation of the crime from
homicide to murder and by adding the allegation that petitioner had conspired with his co-
accused in the killing. Buhat opposed the motion to amend stating that the proposed
amendments are substantial and hence cannot be allowed after plea.
a) Are the amendments sought to be made substantial?
b) Would your answer be the same if there was no allegation of abuse of superior
strength in the information?

Amendment in the Information which changes the nature of the crime after arraignment
GR: The prosecutor can no longer amend the information after arraignment as it would prejudice the
substantial rights of the accused.
XPN: When a fact supervenes which changes the nature of the crime charged in the information or
upgrades it to a higher crime, the prosecutor, with leave of court, may amend the information to allege
such supervening fact and upgrade the crime charged to the higher crime brought about by such
supervening fact.

Substantial Amendment
An amendment is substantial when it covers matters involving the recital of facts constituting the offense
charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.

NOTE: After arraignment, a substantial amendment is prohibited except if the same is beneficial to the
accused. Substantial amendment after the plea has been taken cannot be made over the objection of the
accused, for if the original would be withdrawn, the accused could invoke double jeopardy. (Pacoy v.
Cajical, G.R. No. 157472, 28 Sep. 2007)

SUBSTITUTION

When substitution is proper

If it appears any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the
court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper
offense, provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. (Sec. 14, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended)

Limitations on substitution
1. No judgment has yet been rendered;
2. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or of any other offense necessarily
included therein; and
3. The accused would not be placed in double jeopardy. (Herrera, 2007)

Effect of a substitution
Substitution of the information entails another preliminary investigation and plea to the new information.

Q. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of less serious physical injuries. Before
judgment, the fiscal moved that he be allowed to file a new information against the accused
for the graver crime of frustrated murder it appearing that the injuries were inflicted with
intent to kill. The defense objected upon the ground that the charge for less serious physical
injuries is included in the offense of frustrated murder and since he had already pleaded to the
lesser charge, the filing of a new information would constitute second jeopardy. The
prosecution replied that there would be no double jeopardy as the complaint will be dismissed
upon the filing of the information for frustrated murder, pursuant to 511 R11942 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure relevant to situations when mistake has been made in charging
the proper offense. The fiscal argued that the fact of the accused's intent to kill was
discovered by the prosecution and the complainant only during
the trial of the case.

a) Resolve the motion. Reasons.

The fiscal's motion for substitution of information should be granted. Under 814 R110 on
substitution, if it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging
the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original information upon the filing of a new one
charging the proper offense, provided the accused would not be placed in double jeopardy. Here
there was a mistake in charging the proper offense, which should have been frustrated murder
instead of less serious physical injuries, and the filing of the new information would not place the
accused in double jeopardy since the graver offense arose from facts discovered after the accused
had pleaded in the first case.
b) Suppose the intent to kill is indicated in the affidavits of the witnesses for the complainant which
were the basis for the filing of the complaint, would your resolution be different and if so,
why?
No, my resolution would be different. In that case the motion for substitution should not be
granted since the filing of the new information would place the accused in double jeopardy. The
reason is that the intent to kill was known all along to the prosecution even before the accused
pleaded to the information for less serious physical injuries. Hence it would not fall within any of the
exceptions under 87 R117, particularly S7(b).

SECTION 15 VENUE (PLACE WHERE ACTION IS INSTITUTED)

Venue for the institution of criminal actions

GR: Subject to existing laws, criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory where the offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients occurred. (Sec. 15(a), Rule
110, ROC, as amended)

NOTE: Venue is a jurisdictional matter. The court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with
an offense committed outside its limited territory. (Riano, 2019).

XPNs:
1. An offense was committed on a railroad train, in an aircraft, or in any other public or
private vehicle in the course of trip – The criminal action may be instituted and tried in the
court of any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or other vehicle passed during such
trip, including the place of departure and arrival (Sec. 15(b), Rule 110, ROC, as amended);
2. Where the offense is committed on board a vessel on its voyage – The criminal action may
be instituted and tried in the proper court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory
through which the vessel passed during such voyage subject to the generally accepted principles of
international law (Sec. 15(c), Rule 110, ROC, as amended);
3. Felonies under Art. 2 of the RPC – Shall be cognizable by the proper court where the criminal
action was first filed (Sec. 15(d), Rule 110, ROC, as amended);
4. Continuous or transitory crimes – Such offenses may be tried by the court of any jurisdiction
wherever the offender may be found, but the complainant should allege that the offense was
committed within the jurisdiction of the court (Herrera, 2007);
5. Piracy – The venue of piracy, unlike all other crimes, has no territorial limits. It is triable anywhere;
6. Libel – The action may be instituted at the election of the offended or suing party in the
municipality or city where:
a. The libelous article is printed and first published;
b. If one of the offended parties is a private individual, where said private individual actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or
c. If the offended party is a public official, where the latter holds office at the time of the
commission of the offense.
7. B.P. No. 22 cases – The criminal action shall be filed at the place where the check was drawn,
issued, delivered, or dishonored. In case of crossed check, the place of the depositary or the
collecting bank
8. Perjury – The criminal action may be instituted at the place where the testimony under oath is
given or where the statement is submitted, since both are material ingredients of the crime
committed (Union Bank vs. People, G.R. No. 192562, 28 Feb. 2012);
9. Violation of Sec. 9 of Migrant Worker and Oversees Filipino Act of 1995 – It shall be filed
not only in RTC where the offense was committed but it may also be filed where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. The first court to acquire jurisdiction
excludes others;
10. Article 315(2)(d) of the RPC – It may be instituted at the place where the deceit or damage may
arise;
11. Where the Supreme Court, pursuant to its constitutional powers orders a change of venue or place
of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice (Section 5(4), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines);
 12. Cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan – Where the case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the
jurisdiction of which depends upon the nature of the offense and the position of the accused the
offense need not be tried in the place where the act was committed but where the court actually
sits in Quezon City.

Q: Mike was charged with libel. The information however failed to allege that complainant Roy
was a resident of the place over which the court has jurisdiction. May Mike file a motion to
quash based on such defect in the Information?
A: YES. In libel cases, failure to allege in the information that the offended party is a resident of the place
over which the court where the information was filed has jurisdiction and the fact that the articles were
first published and printed in said place is a substantial defect that can be a proper ground for a motion to
quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Such defect is not merely as to form which can be properly
amended. (Agustin v. De Leon, G.R. No. 164938, 22 Aug. 2005).

Q. What is the venue of criminal actions involving cybercrime offenses?

A. The criminal actions for violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other offenses),
Chapter II of RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act shall be filed before the designated cybercrime court of
the province or city where the offense or any of its elements is committed or where any part of the
computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took
place Provided, that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the
exclusion of the other courts.

All other crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special laws,
committed by, through, and with the use of ICT, as provided under Section 6, Chapter II of RA 10175, shall
be filed before the regular or other specialized regional trial courts, as the case may be. (Rule on
Cybercrime Warrants).

Q. If a criminal case is filed in the wrong venue, what is the remedy of the accused?

Q. A bus departed the terminal from Manila bound for Baguio City. In Malolos during a stop-
over, X and Y boarded the bus. While the bus was on the road in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, X and
Y announced a hold-up. They divested the passengers of their valuables and got off in Sison,
Pangasinan.
a) Where is the venue of the criminal case for robbery?
b) What if X and Y committed the robbery in Malolos, while the bus was on a stop-over. Where is the venue
of the criminal case for robbery?

Q. In behalf of the Yuchengco family, the private respondent filed a criminal complaint against
the petitioners before the office of the city prosecutor of Makati. The private respondent in his
complaint averred that the petitioners had put up a website and a blogsite were they posted
articles and statements that libeled Ambassador Yuchengco. The information for libel were
subsequently filed with the RTC of Makati City and averred that the defamatory article was
first published and
accessed in Makati. Does the Makati RTC have jurisdiction over the case?

Q. The accused was charged with perjury through the making of a false affidavit under Article
183 of the Revised Penal Code, committed allegedly by executing a certification against forum
shopping containing a false narration. Where is the proper venue of the perjury charge?
Makati City, where the certificate against forum shopping was notarized, or Pasay City, where
the CFS was presented to the trial court?
A. Makati where the affiant subscribed and swore to her CFS before the notary public. Perjury committed
through the making of a false affidavit under Art. 183 is committed when the affiant subscribes and swears
to his or her affidavit since it is when the crime is consummated and all the elements of perjury are
executed. (Union Bank v. People, 28 February 2012, e.b., Brion, J.).

Q. The information for falsification of private document filed with the MCTC of Jagna, Bohol,
alleged that the crime was committed in Jagna. If the evidence adduced during the trial would
show that the crime was committed outside the MCTC's territorial jurisdiction (i.e., Cebu City),
should the MCTC dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction?
A. Yes, since the defense of lack of jurisdiction due to improper venue may be raised at any stage of the
case. (Navaja v. De Castro, 22 June 2015, Peralta, J.)

Q. AAA and BBB were married in 2006. BBB started working in Singapore as a chef in 2007 and
he acquired permanent residency status there. In Singapore, he also began an affair with a
Singaporean woman with whom he was cohabiting. He was charged in an information before
the RTC of Pasig City, where AAA resides, with the violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262, that is,
the crime of causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife. May Philippine courts exercise
jurisdiction over an offense constituting psychological violence under Republic Act No. 9262,
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004,
committed through marital infidelity, when the alleged illicit relationship occurred or is
occurring outside the country?