REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

Rationale of the rule

Pursuant to Section 36 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, otherwise known as the
Judiciary Reorganization Act o 1980 and to the cases referred to therein, and without
regard to the technical rules, the Supreme Court in an En Banc Resolution dated June
16, 1983 and amended on July 29, 1983, promulgated the Rule on Summary Procedure.

The Rule on Summary Procedure took effect on August 01, 1983 and had
undergone several reviews and amendments. The Supreme Court came up with Revised
Rule on October 15, 1991 and became effective on November 15 1991 (Sec 23, RRSP).

The radical innovation was most welcomed by the bench particularly the First
Level Trial Court Judges (MTC’s as it greatly helped in the unclogging of their dockets).
This is an abandonment of the excessive concern for the technicalities and procedural
niceties but a sincere concern of lawyers to the cause of truth and substantial justice
without sacrificing our due process of law.

The every heart of the Rule on Summary Procedure is the use of the
AFFIDAVITS and POSITION PAPERS to replace direct and oral testimonies but there is
still cross- examination, and re cross- examination. The cross-examiner and the
presiding judge can ferret out inaccuracies from the affidavits or position papers. It is
therefore important that the preparation of affidavit, counter affidavits, must be given
careful attention.

The Rule on Summary Procedure provides applicability of the regular Rules to

special cases provided for in suppletory capacity insofar as they are not inconsistent
therewith (Sec 22 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure).

To What Cases Applicable?

Civil Cases:
1. All cases of Forcibly Entry and Unlawful Detainer, irrespective of the
amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered, where
attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty thousand
pesos (20,000).
2. All cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the
plaintiffs claims do not exceed ten thousand pesos (10,000).

Criminal Cases:
1. Violation of traffic laws rules and regulations;
2. Violation of the rental laws
3. Violation of municipal or city ordinances;
4. Offences involving damages to property through criminal negligence
where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(10,000).
5. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding one thousand pesos
(1,000), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory
or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising there from (sec.1 Rev. Rule
on Summary Procedure).

1
Determination and Non-applicability

The Revised Rule on Summary Procedures shall not apply to a civil case where
the plaintiff cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of
action subject to the regular procedure; or to a criminal case subject to the regular
procedure.

Upon the filing of a civil or criminal action, the court shall issue an order
declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by the rule.
A patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of the Rule on
Summary Procedure is a ground to disciplinary action (Sec1 and, Rev. Rule on summary
Proc).

PROSECUTION OF CRINAL CASES

SECTION 11 HOW COMMENCED- the filing of criminal cases falling within the scope
of this rule shall either by complaint or by information: Provided however, that in
Metropolitan Manila and in chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced only by
information, except when the offence cannot be prosecuted de officio.

The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the

complaints and of his witnesses in such number of copies, as there are accused plus
two (2) copies for the court’s file. If this requirements is not complied within five (5)
days from the date of the filing. The case may be dismissed.

NOTE: THIS IS A MANDATORY PROVISION AS THE LAW USED THE WORD

SHALL,

Rile 110 of the Regular Rules of Procedure shall be applicable with this section as
far as prosecution of offences is concern.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS:

A. No Accompanying Affidavits – the court will dismiss the case.

There are instances when the prosecutor’s office fails to attach the
affidavits. WHAT CASE SHALL BOT BE DONE? While the law
provides for the dismissal of the case, in the interest of Justice the
Court shall order the prosecution (fiscal) to submit the affidavits on
time, the time of the court is wasted and it has no choice but to
dismiss the case.
B. Insufficient Number of Copies Filed - the court shall require
additional copies.
C. To a copy of affidavits for his to intelligently prepare his counter-
affidavit
D. Un Sworn Affidavits – have the affidavits sworn to (in the first
place if the affidavits are not under oath not have been filed)
criminal cases cannot be compromised, except those cases
specially authorized by the law to be compromised.

So, if there is a settlement of the civil aspect of the case, it is the criminal case
compromised?

The answer is NO

2
 It must be remembered that offenses, cause (2) classes of injuries:
(a) SOCIAL INJURY – produced by the disturbance and harm as a result
of the offense, and the offended party here is the People of the
Philippines as an outrage against the sovereignty of the state.
(b) PERSONAL INJURY – This is the damage, suffered by the victim of
the offense to his person, property, honor or chastity.

SOCIAL INJURY is repaired or vindicated by the imposition of the corresponding

aspect while –

PERSONAL INJURY is repaired by the indemnity. This is the civil aspect but may be
waived by the victim. Hence, if the parties settled and the prosecution moves for
dismissal of the case the same should not be based on the ground that the parties have
settled the civil aspect of the case that the complaint is no longer interested to pursue.

PROCEDURE OF THE TRIAL PROPER

At the trial, the affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the direct
testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same. Witnesses who testified may be
subjected to cross-examination, redirect or re-cross-examination. Should the affiant fail
to testify; his affidavit shall not be considered as competent evidence for the party
presented the affidavit, but the adverse party may use the same for any admissible
purpose.

Except on rebuttal, no witness shall be allowed to testify unless his affidavit was
previously submitted to the court in accordance with section 12.

However, should a party desire to present additional affidavit of counter

affidavits as a part of his direct evidence, he shall so-manifest during the preliminary
conference, stating the purpose thereof. If allowed by the court, the additional
affidavits of the prosecution or the counter-affidavits of the defense shall be submitted
to the court and serve on the adverse party not later than 3 days after the termination
of the preliminary conference. If the prosecution presents the additional affidavits, the
accused may file his counter-affidavits and serve the same on the prosecution within 3
days from such service.

If the prosecution and the defense agree to submit the case for resolution,
waiving the right to cross-examine the witness, then –

May a witness be allowed to correct or supplement to content of his affidavit? To

clarify matters the court may allow clarificatory questions in the light of Section 15 3 rd
par. And the ruling in the case if Biala vs, C.A 191 SCRA 50; People vs. Lovenia, 187
SCRA 47, it ha been ruled that an affidavit being ex-parte is almost always incompletely
and inaccurate and are generally considered inferior to the testimony given in court and
may give rise to contradictions between his affidavits and his testimony. The affidavit
always discloses the whole facts and will often times described only some of the
material occurrences narrated. It is common knowledge that if the statement is taken
by the police officer it is usually incomplete. Such situation though allowed, the court
must see to it that the questions are only clarificatory in order to put meaning to the
intent and spirit of the Rule on Summary Procedure. It must be remembered, however,
that there is more sufficient time for the parties to submit clarificatory affidavits before
arraignment.

In the following cases, I believe there is a need to propound questions on certain

matters that are not contained in the affidavits –

3
 a. IN PHYSICAL INJURY CASES – it is common knowledge that the facts on
injuries sustained and related circumstances are contained in the affidavit and
does not mention the pecuniary liabilities such as indemnification of
consequential damages.
b. In Oral Defamation Cases and other similar cases where damages may be
awarded.
c. In Reckless Imprudence resulting to crimes against or rime against property.
Seldom do we find affidavits pecuniary liabilities.

May the Witness allowed to testify if he did not execute any Affidavit?
Generally, No, he cannot be allowed to testify, however, there are situations that
the witness be allowed even if he did not execute an affidavit and these, I are the
exception –

a. Doctor who will be presented as witness in connection with the medico-legal

certificate issued.
b. Traffic Police Investigators who will be presented as to their report;
c. As mentioned earlier, a rebuttal and surrebuttal witness/es.

Under the last paragraph of Sec.15 of the rule, it would seem that the rule allows
submission of additional affidavits or counter-affidavits as a part of has direct evidence
after the arraignment. In the words of the law… however, should a party desire to
present additional affidavit or counter affidavits as part of his direct evidence, he shall
so manifest during the preliminary conference, stating the purpose thereof. “IF
ALLOWED BY THE COURT”; the additional affidavits of the prosecution or the counter
affidavit of the defense shall be submitted to the court and served on the adverse party
not later than Three (3) days after the termination of the preliminary conference.

In the case of C.A VS, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, AC – G.R SP 09140,
May 23, 1958, the court ruled that this tantamount to extension of time to file affidavits
and other evidence which is prohibited pleading hence, said affidavit are no longer
admissible.

In the trial proper, the procedure can still be a abbreviated if the prosecution and
defense agree to submit the case for resolution based on the affidavits submitted
waiving the right to cross-examine the witnesses, they marked their documentary
exhibits and often them with their purpose or without need of presenting the witness to
identify their affidavits.

SECTION 16 – ARREST OF THE ACCUSED – the court shall not order the arrest of
the accused except for failure to appear wherever required, release of the person
arrested shall either be on bail recognizance by a responsible citizen by the court.

In case of minors, more often than not, they remain in custody of law because their
parents or relatives refuse to come to court even if summoned hence; the minors are
not released and after a few hours, he was stabbed.

SECTION 17 – JUDGMENT – the court shall promulgate the judgment not later than
thirty days after the termination of the trial.

Under the regular rules, the parties are allowed to submit memoranda. Under the
Rule on Summary Procedure, submission of memoranda is prohibited. But it is observed

4
that some lawyers still for the time to submit memorandum or simultaneous
memoranda.

PROSECUTION OF CIVIL CASE

SECTION 3

a.) PLEADING ALLOWED - complaints, compulsory counter-claims and cross

claims pleaded in the answer and answer thereto.
b.) VERIFICATION – all pleadings shall be verified. The court shall not dismiss
the case outright but issue an order requiring the party or counsel concerned to verify
the same.
FELISIDA vs. Villanueva, 139 – SCRA 431

There is no longer any trial or ex-parte hearing at which facts alleged will have to
be proved. It must be made clear, however, that the complaint is verified, that means
that the plaintiff swears to the alleged facts from his own personal knowledge.

SECTION 7 – PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE – this pre-supposes that an answer is

filed. The case undergoes a preliminary conference, which is set not later than 30 days,
after the last field. The rule on pre-trial (under the regular rules, Rule 20) is applied in a
suppletory capacity.

Failure of the plaintiff to appear in a preliminary conference shall be a cause for

the dismissal of his complaint. The defendants who appear in the absence of the
plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment of his counter-claim in accordance with Sec. 6
hereof. All cross-claims shall be dismissed.

Since the purpose of the Rule is to expedite procedure, effort are exerted to
arrive an amicable settlement and to define the issues of the case.

Within five days after preliminary conference, the court shall issue an Order,
which clearly and distinctly sets forth the issues of the case and other matters taken up
during the preliminary conference. This order is an important part of the summary in
that its receipt by the parties set in motion the 10-day period t submits affidavits and
other requirements mentioned in Section 9 of the Rule.

SECTION 9 – SUBMISSION OF AFIDAVITS AND POSITION PAPERS – within 10

days from receipt of the preliminary conference order, the parties submit the affidavits
of their witness and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the Order, together
with their position paper setting for the law and facts relied upon by them.

After the submission of the affidavits and other evidence and their position
papers, the Court renders judgment without the need of a formal hearing.

The Court, however, may find it necessary to clarify certain material facts in
which case it issues an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the
parties to submit or present evidence on said matters within 10 days from receipt of the
Order.

It should be emphasized here that formal hearing is dispensed with. Since there
is no longer any direct examination of witnesses, great evidentiary weight is given to
that affidavit submitted.

5
 That is, however, dangerous. There is the greater possibility for fabricated
evidence to be injected into the case because the one who prepares the affidavit, who
is not generally the affiant himself, may add, modify, alter or unduly embellish tha facts
or declaration of the affiant. This may come about wittingly, unwittingly, deliberately, or
due to incompetence.

Be that as it may.

CONCLUSION – it is hope that the Rule on Summary on Procedure may not be

misused or abused as an instrument for the denial of substantial justice rather to
implement properly the rule to achieve its fundamental objectives.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. Criminal Procedure – is the legal method fixed by the law for the
apprehension and prosecution of a person who is supposed to have
committed a crime and for his punishment in a case of conviction.

2. Criminal Jurisprudence – is the authority or power of a court to try, hear a

particular offence and to impose the corresponding punishment for it.

3. Criminal Law – is a division or branch of law, which defines crime, teats of

their nature and provides for their punishment.

4. Complaint – is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense,

subscribe by the offended party, any peace officer or any public officer
charged with the enforcement of law violated (Sec. 3 Rule 110)
5. Information – is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the public prosecutor and filed with the court (Sec 4 Rule 110)

6. Arraignment – is the stage of judicial proceeding where the accused is

formally informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
(mandatory) Rule 116.

7. Venue – is the place to which an action (criminal, civil or administrative) is to

be brought for trial, of the territorial unit where the power or authority of the
court is to be exercised.

8. Arrest – is the taking of the person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense (Sec. 1, Rule 113)

9. Bail – is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or bonds man, conditioned upon his appearance before any
court as required under the condition of the bond, and which may be given in
the form of cash deposit, property bond, corporate surety or recognizance
(Sec. 1, 10, 11, 14 and 15, Rule 114)

10.Conciliation or Mediation – is the process where the parties or disputants shall

be encouraged in a personal confrontation to settle amicably dispute.

6
 ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURES

ARREST
(Rule 113)

Definition of Arrest – arrest is the taking of person into custody in order that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of an offense (Sec. 1, Rule 113)

Life time of Warrant of arrest – unlike the search warrant, a warrant of arrest
shall be valid where in the Philippines until it is SERVED or Lifted (recalled) by the court.

Arrest: how made – an arrest made by an actual retrain of the person to be

arrested o r by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest (Sec.2,
ibid.)

No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest, and the

person arrested shall not be subjected to any greater restrain than is necessary for his
detention.

Duty of Arresting Officer – it shall be the duty of the officer executing the
warrant without unnecessary delay to arrest the accused and to deliver him to the
nearest police station or jail. (Sec. 3, ibid).

Execution of Warrant – the head of the office to which the warrant of arrest has
been delivered for execution shall cause the warrant to be executed within 10 days
from receipt thereto. Within 10 days after the expiration of such period, the officer to
whom it was assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who issued the
warrant and. In case of his failure execute the same shall state the reasons thereof.
(Sec. 4, ibid).

Time of making Arrest – an arrest may be made on any day and at any time of
the day or night (Sec. 6, ibid.)

Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant – when making an arrest by

virtue of a warrant the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the
arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest, except when the
flees or forcibly resist before the officer has opportunity so to inform him or when the
giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (Sec. 7, ibid.)

Method of Arrest by Officer without a Warrant – when making an arrest

without a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of authority and
the cause of the arrest, unless the person to be arrested is then engaged in the
commission of an offense or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an
escape, or flees or forcibly resist before the officer has opportunity so to inform him, or
when giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (Sec. 8, ibid.)

Method of Arrest by a Private Person – a private person when making an

arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and cause of
the arrest, unless the person to be arrested is then engaged in the commission of an
offense, or pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or
forcibly resist before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or
when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (Sec. 9, ibid)

7
 Officer may Summon Assistance – an officer making a lawful arrest may
orally summon as many people as he deems necessary to aid him in making the arrest.
Every person so summoned by an officer shall aid him in making so of such arrest,
when he can render such aid without detriment to himself. (Sec. 10, ibid)

Rights of Officer to Break in to Building or Enclosure – an officer in order

to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or when authorized to make such arrest
for an offense without a warrant, as provided in Section 5, may break into any building
or enclosure in which the person to be arrested is or reasonably believed to be, if he is
refused admittance thereto he has announced his authority and purpose. (Sec. 11, ibid)

Right to Brake-out Building or Enclosure to Effect Release – whenever an

offense has entered the building or enclosure in accordance with the provisions of the
preceding section, he may break out there from when believe to be if he is refused
admittance thereto, when necessary for the purpose of liberating himself. (Sec. 12,
ibid)

Arrest after Escape or Rescue – if a person lawfully escapes or is rescued,

any person may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in
any place within the Philippines. (Sec. 13, ibid)

Right of Attorney or relative to Visit Person Arrested – any member of the

bas shall, at the request of the person arrested of another acting in his behalf, have the
right to visit and confer privately with such person, in the jail or any other place of
custody at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night. This right shall also be
exercised by any relative of the person arrested subjected to reasonable regulation.
(See R.A #7438)

CONSTITUIONAL GUARANTEES

1. Definition – Sec. 1, Revised Rule of Court

a. Where a policeman suspected a person to have committed the crime,

the act of such voluntarily going with the policeman upon such officers
“invitation” constituted an arrest. (People vs. Sequion, 264 SCRA 79)

2. Issuance of Warrant of Arrest

a. In issuing warrant of arrest in preliminary investigation, the

investigating judge must:
1. Have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and
his witness by searching questions and answers:
2. Be satisfied that the probable cause exist; and
3. That there is a need to place respondent under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
(Mantaring vs. Roman Jr., SCRA 158).

b. Before issuing a warrant of arrest, judges must not rely solely on the
report or resolution of the prosecutor they must evaluate the report
and the supporting documents which may consist of the
affidavit/sworn statement, the transcript (if any) and all other
supporting documents besides the prosecutor’s certification which are

8
 material in assisting the judge to make his determination of probable
cause. (Roberts, Jr. vs. CA, 254SCRA 307)

GENERAL RULE

1. The constitution prescribed arrest, search and seizure of

person without a judicial warrant. (Hizon vs. CA 265 SCRA 517)

2. Police officer may affect even without the copy of the warrant in their
possession at the time of arrest, (Sec. 7, last sentence, Rule 113).

EXCEPTIONS (or WARRANTLESS ARREST)

a. Sec. 5,Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure – a peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant arrest a person:

a.1 “When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or attempting to commit an offense.”

a.1.1 A buy-bust operation ids far variant an ordinary arrest, it is form f

entrapment, which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means or
arresting violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. (People vs. Juatan, 260
SCRA 532).

a.1.2 The arrest without the warrant can be justified only if there was a
crime committed in the presence of the arresting officers. (People vs.
Rodriguez 232 SCRA 498).

a.1.3 Sec. 5, Rule 113 o the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

authorizes a warrant less arrest otherwise called Citizen’s Arrest, “when in
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, actually
committing, or is attempting to commit the offense.” (People vs. Rayray,
241 SCRA 1).

a.1.4 the arrest that followed the host-pursuit is valid. (People vs. de Lara,
236 SCRA 291)

a.2 “When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on the personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.”

a.2.2 Where a policeman has no probable cause to believe on personal

knowledge of fact or circumstances indicating a suspects guilt, at best,
only an unreasonable suspicion, then the warrant less arrest effected was
illegal.

a.2.3 Warrant is required to arrest suspects and for the search and seizure
of his personal effects if same was done nineteen hours after the
commission of the crime. (People vs. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701)

a.2.4 The warrantless arrest and search of a person whose identity the
police was only able to learn during the investigation of persons they
earlier arrested not valid (People vs. Merabueno, 239 SCRA 179)

9
 a.3. “When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escape from a
penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escape while
transferred from one confinement to another.”

a.4 “When the right is voluntarily waived.”

a.4.1 The acts of the accused of not questioning the legality of their
arrest, in their pleading, or during arraignment, to the information filed
against them, constitute a clear waiver of their right against unlawful
restraint of liberty. (People vs. Silam, 354 SCRA 491)

a.4.2 An accused waives any irregularity attendant to his alleged

warrantless arrest when he files a petition for bail. (People vs. Lazura, 255
SCRA 85)

NOTE: this ruling is no longer applicable due to revision of the rules of

criminal procedure. Rule 114, Sec. 26, Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure Provides:

“Sec. 26. – Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of

irregular preliminary investigation. An application for or admission to bail
shall not bar the accused form challenging the validity of his arrest or the
legality of the warrant issued thereof, or from assailing the regularity or
questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the change
against him, provided the he raise them before entering his plea. The
court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but nt later the start
of the trial of the case. ”

b. Bondsman’s Arrest – Sec. 23, Rule 114. RRCP

1. Arrest of accused out on bail – for the purpose of surrendering

the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him, or on written
authority endorsed on a certificate copy of the undertaking
may cause him to be arrested by any police or any other
person of suitable age and discretion.
2. An accused released on bail may be re-arresting without the
necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the
Philippines without prior permission of the court where the
case is pending (2nd par.)

EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL ARREST

a. Even that accused was illegally arrested this will not affect his culpability
since an allegation of a warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right
to convict the guilty when all the facts on records point to his culpability.
(People vs. Solon, 254 SCRA 491)
b. Any defect in the arrest of the accused must be deemed cured when they
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court for the person of the
accused. (People vs. Nazareno, 260 SCRA 256)
c. The illegal arrest of the accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a
valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from
error. (People vs. Lopes, 245 SCRA 95)

10
 SEARCH AND SEIZURE
(Rile 126)

1. Section 1, Rule 126,

“Search warrants in an order in writing issued in the mane 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.”

2. Lifetime of Search Warrant

Sec. 10, Rule 126 Provides:

“Sec. 10 Validity has a lifetime of ten (10) days from its issuance and it could be
served at any time within the said period, and if its object or purpose cannot be
accomplished in one day, the same may be continued the following day or days
until completed. (Mustang lumber, Inc. vs. CA. 257 CSRA 430) Sec. 10, Rule 126.

3. Service or Search Warrant

The general rule is that search warrant must be served during the daytime.
However, the rule allows an exception, namely, a search at any reasonable hour
of the day or night, when the application asserts that the property is on the
person or place ordered to be searched. The rule on issuance of a search
warrant allows for the exercise of judicial discretion in fixing the tie within which
he warrant may be served, subject to the statutory requirement fixing the
maximum time for the execution of a warrant, which is ten (10) days from its
date of issue. The exact time of the search warrant should be left to the
discretion of the law enforcement officers, judicial notice may be taken not just
of the realities of law enforcement, but also the prevailing conditions in the place
to be searched. We should like judicial notice that 7:30 p.m. in a suburban
subdivision in Metro Manila for an instance is an hour at which residents are still
up-and-about. To hold said hour as an unreasonable time to serve a search
warrant would not only hamper law enforcement, but could also lead to absurd
results, enabling criminals to conceal their illegal activities by pursuing such
activities only at night.

4. Jurisdiction in the Issuance of Search Warrant

a. When necessitated and justified by compelling considerations of urgency,

subject, time and place, a court may issue a search warrant concerning a
place outside its territorial jurisdiction (Ilano vs. CA, 244 Scra 346) Sec. 2,
Rule 126.
b. A warrant is merely a process issued by a court in the exercise of its auxiliary
jurisdiction and not a criminal action which it may entertain pursuant to its
original jurisdiction.

Where to apply for Search Warrant? Rule 126, sec. 2, provide:

“Sec. 2, Rule 126. Court where application for Search Warrant is filed –
An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:

a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was

committed, or

11
 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 religion 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 actions are pleading.”

5. Rule on Forum Shopping.

A search warrant was quashed because the applicant had been guilty of forum
shopping as the applicant sought the search from Manila Regional Trial Court
after denial by the Courts of Pampanga. (Washington Distellers vs. Coyrt Os
Appeals. G.R No. 118151, August 22, 1996.260 SCRA 821)

The rule of the Court however, requires only the initiatory pleading to be
accompanied with a certification of non-forum omitting any mention of
“applications” for search warrant. (Savage vs. Typin, G.R No. 134217, May 11,
2000)

6. Manner of Execution.

a. No law or jurisprudence requires that an arrest or seizure to be valid be

witnessed by a relative, a barangay official or any other civilian or be
accompanied by taking of pictures.
b. “Sec. 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court requires that no search of a house,
room or any of the premises shall be made except in the presence of the
lawful occupants thereof or any embers of his family, or in the absence of the
latter, in the residing in the same locality.”

NOTE: failure to comply with the requirement invalidates the search (People
vs. Gesmundo, G.R No.89373, March 9, 1993)

PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SEIZURE

1. “Sec. 3, Rule 126 Personal Property to be seized – a search warrant may be

issued for the searched and seizure of personal property.
a. Subject of the offense;
b. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; and
c. Use or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

2. Forfeiture of the proceeds of the Crime and the instrument or tools with
which it was committed cannot be done if the same be the property of the
third person not liable for the offense. (Momogan vs. Omipon, 242 SCRA)

3. For the retention and release of properties seized, approved of the court
which issued the search warrant is necessary. (Tambasen vs. People, 246
SCRA 184)

INADMISSIBILITY OF ILLEGALITY SEIZED EVIDENCE

1. Section 3 (2), 1987 Constitution provides:

XxX

12
 “Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.”

GENERAL RULE

1. The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried through or with
a judicial warrant, otherwise such search and seizure become unreasonable.
(People vs. Barros, 231 SCRA 557)

EXCEPTION (or WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE):

1. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest

“Sec. 13 Search Incident to a 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”.

a. where the arrest of the accused was lawful, having been caught in
fragrante delicto, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure of the
fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the same
being incidental to lawful arrest. (People vs. Luna, 256 SCRA 539)
b. The warrant search and seizure as an incident to a suspect’s lawful
arrest may extend the person of the one arrested to include the
premises or surroundings under his immediate control. (People vs. Ang
Chun Kit, 251 SCRA 660)
c. A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the
arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made.
(People vs. de Lara, 236 SCRA 291)
d. Where a person is lawfully arrested outside his house, a warrantless
search of his house is unlawful. (People vs. Luna, 256 SCRA 539)

2. Seizure of evidence in Plain View

a. Objects in plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the

position to have the view are subjected to seizure and may be
presented as evidence. (People vs. Leangsisi, 252 SCRA 213)

Requisites of Plain View Search

b. Plain View doctrine explained – for the plain view doctrine to apply
elements must be present.
i. A prior valid intrusion on the valid warrant in which the police
are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
ii. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who
have the right to be where they are;
iii. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and plain view
justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

The seizure of evidence in “Plain view” applies only where the police officer is not
searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court noted that the
testimony of the police officer shows that upon arriving at the area, they first
had “look around the area before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the

13
seized marijuana plants were not “immediately apparent” and a “further search”
was need. In short, the marijuana plants in question were not in “plain view” or
“open to eye and hand”. The “Plain view” doctrine, thus cannot be made in this
case (People vs. Valdez, G.R No. 129296, Sept. 25, 2000)

3. Search of a Moving Motor Vehicle

a. In a carrying out warrantless searches of moving vehicles, peace

officer are limited to routine checks, that is the vehicles are neither
really searched not their occupants subject to physical or body search,
the examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection.
(People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557)
b. An extensive warrantless search of the vehicle that has been stopped
is constitutionally permissible only if there is probable cause. (People v.
Barros, 231 SCRA 557)
c. Requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the
carrying out of a search and seizure is not absolute, the exception is
the search of moving vehicles. (Search vs. Sayson, 236 SCRA 325)
d. A warrantless search is not violated of the Constitution for as long as
the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body
search, and the inspection of vehicle limited to a visual search. (Aniag
vs. Comelec, 237 SCRA 424)
e. An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if the
officers conducting the search that either had reasonable or probable
cause to believe before the search that either the motorist was a law
offender or that they would find the instrumentally or evidence
pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched.
(Aniag vs. Comelec SUPRA)
f. A forest officer or employee of the Bureau of Forestry or any personnel
of the PNP shall arrest even without warrant any person who has
committed is committing in his presence any of the offenses defined in
PD No. 705. They shall also seize and confiscate in favor of the
government the tools and equipment used in committing the offense,
and the forest products cut, gathered taken or poses by the offender.
(Sec. 80, PD No.705). (In the case of Mustang Lumber, Inc. vs., Court
of Appeals, 257 SCRA 430, Supreme Court upheld the legality of the
seizure of a truck coming out of petitioner’s lumber yard loaded lauaan
and almaciga lumber which were not accompanied with the required
invoices and transport documents.)

4. Search of Vessels/aircraft’s

a. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and boats

breaching the violation of customs law have been the traditional
exception to the constitutional requirement of search warrant. (Hizon
vs. CA> 265 SCRA 517)
b. Exception ought to apply also to apply also to seizure of vessels and
boats breaching the fishery laws.(RA 8850). (Hizon vs> CA. Supra)
c. Search and seizure without search warrant of fishing vessels suspected
of breaching our fishery laws is valid as an exception to Sec. 2 Art. III
of the Constitution Re: the fundamental right against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Besides, search and seizures as an incident to a
lawful. (Roldan, Jr. vs. area, 65 scra 336, Hizon vs. CA>Supra.)

14
 consequently, the seizure of the vessel engage in illegal fishing, its
equipment and explosives therein is equally valid as an incident to a
lawful arrest. (Roladan, Jr. Supra).

5. Inspection of Building and other Premises for enforcement of fire ,

sanitary and Building Regulation.

6. Custom’s Search

7. Waiver

a. Drugs discovered as the result of a consented search is admissible in

evidence (People vs. Cuizon, 256 SCRA 325)
b. “consent” given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no
consent within the preview of the constitutional guaranty (Aniag vs.
Comelec, 237 CSRA 924)
c. There was deemed a valid waiver where, upon a warrantless search of
a hotel room, consent and voluntary surrender of pagers belonging to
the registered but absent occupant was given by a woman identified
as the wife of the occupant who in fact was a mere manicurist(Lopez
vs. Commissioner of Custom, 68 SCRA 320)

CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES

AND SEIZURES

1. Art. II, Section 2, 1987 Constitution provides:

“Sec. 2, The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches 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 complaint and the
witnesses he may produced and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the person or things to be seized.”

2. Restrains upon the Government:

a. Search and seizures clauses are restraints upon the government and
its agents, not upon private individuals. (Walker vs. State, 429 S.W 2d
121)
b. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures
apply as a restraint directed only against government and its agencies
tasked with the enforcement of the law. It could only be invoked
against the State to whom restraints against arbitrary and
unreasonable exercise of power are imposed. (People vs. Marti, 193
SCRA 57 - 1991). The core issue in this case was the admissibility of
the evidence illegally seized not by the State but by the private
individual. May the prosecution present such evidence against the
possessor? The Supreme Court through Justice. Begin answered in the
affirmative. The Bill of Rights may not be set up against a private
individual. The Bills Of Rights govern the relationship between the
individual and the State. Its concern is not relations between individual
and other individuals. The Marti Ruling was applied with full force in

15
 the case of People vs. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565 (1995) – re-
admissibility of the testimony of Ray Dean Salvosa, a private person,
regarding the admission made by one of the accused to him even if he
did not inform said accused beforehand of his Miranda Rights.

LET US RESPECT THE INDIPENDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND

PRESERVE THE RULE OF LAW

Justice Felix Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court once said:

“History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when court
becomes embroiled in the passion of the day and assumes primary responsibility in
choosing between competing political economic and social pressures.”

When the Supreme Court loses its independence. Truth is sacrificed and the Rule of
Law suffers. And when the Rule of Law undermined. Constitutional Democracy
weakens. The breakdown of the society will not be far behind. “The law is the strongest
link between man and freedom.” John F. Kennedy. “The law is man’s last line of
defense against devil.” St.Thomas More.

Preserving the independence of the Supreme Court is therefore at the center of justice
and freedom, and law and order in society.

In his speech “Keeping Faith and Confidence in Courts”. Chief Justice Pedro L. Yap
expounded on this by pointing out that to effectively discharged its duty as the final
referee on Constitutional matters, the Supreme Court must be able to do so without
fear or favor”, that is, completely and absolutely independent to arrive at its decision
from undisturbed study and reflection. It cannot afford to get entangled in the intense
and consuming passions of the hour… “Or shirk its “duty to stand up, if need be, to
public opinion, even against those who wield the temporary political majority it must
withstand public opinion to make the right decision, not merely the popular one.”

The jurists only weapons are their honest conscience their clean hearts, their
independent mind and their resolute pens.

Let us allow our justices to do honestly the very best they know how – the very best
they can – AND TO KEEP DOING IT SO UNTIL THE END.

JUDICIAL PERSONS
The right is not only evocable by natural but also judicial persons created by
legislative authority (Stonhill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 382)

ELEMENTS OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT:

Rule 126, Sec. 4 provides:

“Sec. 4 Requisites for issuing search warrant – a search warrant
shall not issue upon probable cause in connection with one specific offence
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complaint ant the witnesses he may produce and the
particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized
which maybe any where in the Philippines.”

16
 Take note that this provision of the rule is a reiteration of the constitutional
provision under Sec. 2, Art III of the Constitution, which says that:

“X x x no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except probable cause

to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath of affirmation of
the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the person or things to be seized..”

1. It must be issued upon probable cause

a. Probable cause for search has been defined as such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched. (MHP garments, Inc. CA, 236 SCRA 227;
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 815 (1984); Quintero vs. NBI, 162
SCRA 400 (1988) Pendon vs. CA, 191 SCRA 429 (19900. Manalili vs. CA,
280 SCRA 400 (1997) and People vs. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 (1998).

b. A search warrant not based on probable cause is a nullity or is

void, and the issuance thereof is, in legal contemplation of law,
arbitrary. (Columbia Picture, Inc. vs. CA, 261 SCRA 114)

c. Basis of portable cause; Personal knowledge

This portable cause must be shown to be within the
personal knowledge of the complaint of the witnesses he
may produce and not based on merely hearsay (Prudent vs.
Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989) in order to convince the judge,
not individual making the affidavit and seeking the
issuance of the search warrant of the existence of probable
cause. (Alvarez vs. CFI of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33 (1937);
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, supra; 20th Century Fox Film
Corp. vs. 203 SCRA 140 (1991)

1. Meaning of Knowledge; test is liability for perjury.

The following test was laid in determining whether the allegations
in an application for search warrant or in supporting deposition are based
on the personal knowledge or not – the test of sufficiency of a deposition
or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been
drawn in a manner that perjury could be changed thereon and the affiant
be held liable for damaged caused. The oath required must refer to the
truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant for
search warrant, and his/her witnesses, not of the facts merely reported by
a person whom one considers to be reliable. (Alvarez vs. CFI, supra)

Mere affidavits of the complainant and his/her witnesses are not

sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the
complaint and the witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the
record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may
be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the
probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if will be
found later that his/her declarations are false (Mata vs. Bayona, 128 SCRA
388 (1984)

17
 Search warrant are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful basis of
fact, nor or mere suspicion or belief. The fact recited in an affidavit
supporting the application of search warrant must be stated with sufficient
definiteness, so that if they are false, perjury may be assigned on the
affiant. Hence, affidavits, which g no further than to allege conclusions of
law, or of fact, are sufficient. (Quinterio vs. NBI, supra; Burgos, Sr. vs.
Chief of Staff, supra)

Equally insufficient as a basis for the determination of probable

cause is a statement contained in a joint affidavit “that the evidence
gathered and collected by our unit clearly shows that the premises above
mentioned and the articles and things above describe were used and are
continuously being used for subversive activities in conspiracy with and to
promote the objective of illegal organizations such as the Light –A-Fire
Movement. Movement for free Philippines, and April 6 Movement.”

2. The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not
the applicant or any other person.

a. The determination of whether or not a probable cause exist calls for the
exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be
allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary. (Bache
and Co vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823)

3. In the determination of the probable cause, the judge will examine

under oath or affirmation, the complaint and such witnesses the latter
may produce.

4. The warrant issued must particularly described the placed to be

searched and persons or things to be seized.

a. The description “is required to be specific only in so far the circumstances will
ordinarily allow” where by the nature of the goods to be seized, their
descriptions must be general, as this would mean that no warrant would
issue.
b. No less important, there must be a specific description of the place and the
things to be seized, to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the
warrant, (Columbra Pictures Entertainment, Inc.vs. CA, 262 SCRA 219).
c. A search warrant for more than one offense a ‘seatter-shot warrant’ violates
Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, and is totally nul and void.
(Tambasen vs. People, 246 SCRA 184).
d. The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be
seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant
to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles
they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may
not be made and that abuses may not be committed. (Tambasen vs. People,
248 SCRA 541).
e. The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the
place intended. (Prudente vs. Dayrit,180 supra).
f. The language used is so al embracing as to include all conceivable records
and equipment of the petitioner regardless of whether they are legal or

18
 illegal. The search under consideration was in nature of a general warrant,
which is constitutionally objectionable. (Corro vs. Lising, 137 SCRA 541).
g. As a rule, a John Doe warrant is void. However, when the warrant of arrest
contains a description persona that will enable the officers to identify the
person to be arrested by stating his personal appearance and peculiarities,
his description and place of residence, and any other circumstances by means
of which he can be identified, a John Doe warrant is valid. (People Vs.,
Velasco, 48 Phil. 168).

ISSUANCE OF RECEIPT AND VERIFIED INVENTORY MANDATORY

a. Sec. 11, Rule 126 provides:

“Sec.11. Receipts for the property to be 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”.

b. Sec.12, Rule 126 Provides:

“Sec.12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and

proceeding 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 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 has issued and require him to explain
why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall
ascertain whether Sec 11 of this rule has been complied 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 the other actions of the judge.

“A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court”

THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON SEARCHED TO QUASH THE SEARCH WARRANT AND/OR
SOPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED.
Sec. 14, Rule 126 provides:
“Sec.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 seach warrant. However, if such court failed to
resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the
motion shall be resolved by the latter court.”

19
Take note.
We have now a new Rule on Search and seizure in civil Actions for
Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, (See Administrative Matter No. 02-1-06-SC,
dated January 22, 2002, which took effect February 15, 2002.
This new Rule shall govern the provisional seizure and impounding of
documents and articles in pending and intended civil actions for the purpose of
preventing infringement under R.A. No. 8293, otherwise known as the intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines, Art 50 of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights, otherwise known aas TRIPS and other related laws and
intellectual conventions.

REVISED OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

GENERAL PRINCIPLE

A.Jurisdiction defined:
A Jurisdiction (fron the latin word jus dicere or “ Right to speak”) is the power or
authority to hear, try and decide a case. (Moran, Comments on the Rule of Court, Vol.
1, 19190 ed.,p. 35 citing Herera V. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245 (1913) and Zamora v. C.A.,183
SCRA 279 (1990. It is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance
of and cases. (Black’s 5th ed.) It is the power to hear and determine a cause
(Bouveir’s).

B. Criminal Jurisdiction defined:

It is the authority or the power of a court to hear and try a particular offense and
impose the punishment for it. (peo vs. Mariano, 76 SCRA 600 (1976) The general rule is
that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by:
1. The geographical limits of the territory which it presides, and
2. The actions (civil or criminal) it is empowered to hear and
decide.

As a general rule, the questions of lack of jurisdiction over the subject

matter may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal. (Vda. De
Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957(1918); people vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil.
640(1954).

Where the court has no jurisdiction, the judgement/decision is void and

may be raised at any time in any proceeding. (Abbain vs. Chua, 22 SCRA 748
(1968); Mun. of Caro vs, C...1988); Estoesta vs. C.A., 179 SCRA 203 (1989).

As a rule, all acts of the court rendered without jurisdictions are null and
void. A decision or judgment rendered without judgment is not a decision or
judgement in contemplation of law, and can never be executory. (Mun. of
Antipolo vs. Zapanta, Ibid)

A decision rendered by the court without jurisdiction is total nullity. (Solid

Homes Inc. vs. Payawal, 177 SCRA 72 (1989). Being worthless in itself, all the
proceedings founded upon it, are equally worthless. In the case of Dava vs.
People, 202 SCRA 62 (1991), the supreme ruled the testimony in a case where
the proceedings has been nullified for lack of jurisdiction is inadmissible in the
evidence.

20
 C. Elements of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

The elements of jurisdiction of a trial Court over the subject matter in criminal
cases are:
1. The nature of offense and/or penalty attached thereto; and
2. The fact that the offense has been committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.

The non-concurrence of either of this two elements may be challenge by an

accused at any stage of the proceedings in the below or on appeal. Failing in
one of them a judgment of conviction is null and void (Manila Railroad Cor. Vs.
Atty. General, 20 Phil. 562; U.S. vs. Jaymee, 24 Phil. 90.)

D. Requisites for valid exercise of criminal jurisdiction:

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter.

a. It is conferred on the courts by the constitution or by the law.
The parties have absolutely no power to confer it on the court,
whether expressly or impliedly.
b. It is determined by:
1. The law in force at the time of the commencement/filing of
the action and not by the law at the time of the commission
of the offense(Peo.vs Fontanilla, 23 SCRA 1227 (1968); Dela
Cruz vs. Moya, 160 SCRA 838(1988); Peo. Vs. Lagon, 185
SCRA 442 (1990)
2. Not affected by subsequent law removing jurisdiction.
3. The allegations in the complain and information characterize
or determine the crime to be prosecuted and the court
before which it must tried and not by the results of
proof(Peo.vs. Pener, SO SCRA 598 (1977)
4. Nature of the offense imposable penalty; and salary grade of
the accused public officer or employee ( for Anti-Graft
cases), except in libel cases, violation of intellectual rights,
and violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Sec. 20); P.D No.
606, as amended by R.A. 8249)
5. Estopple – (Peo. Vs. Munar, 53 SCRA 278 (1973)

2. Jurisdiction over the place or territory where the offence was

committed (Sec. 15 Rule 110, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as
Amended)

Peo.vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193 (1977)

Peo. Vs. Pena, 80 SCRA 589 (1977)

3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; how acquired:

a) Actual restraint (or arrest);
b) Voluntary surrender;
c) Filing a pleading for the court to acquired jurisdiction
Santiago vs. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633 (1993)

In order to determine the jurisdiction of the Court in Criminal cases, the

complaint must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the
facts set out therein and the punishment provided for the law for such facts falls
within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed.

21
1. SUPREME COURT

A. ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive
Petition for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the following:

a. Court of Appeal
b. Commission on Election
c. Commission on Audit
d. Sandiganbayan

2. Concurrent
(with Court of Appeals)

Petition for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

against the following:

a. National Labor relation Commission under Labor Code. (Sec. 9 of BP

129 as amended by RA 7902; St. Martin Funeral home vs. NLRC, G.R.
No. 130866, September 16,1998)
b. Civil Service Commission (RA 7902)
c. Central Board of Assessment appeals. (PD 464; sec. 9 of BP 129 as
amended by RA 7902)
d. Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies (Rule 142, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure0
e. Regional trial Court and lower courts
f. Petitions of habeas corpus and quo warranto.
g. Petition for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the lower courts or bodies. (Sec. 9[1] and Sec. 21 [1] of BP
129; Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 763 [1987) ( with Regional Trial
Court)
h. Actions affecting ambassadors and other public minister and consuls.
(Sec. 5[1] Art. VIII, Constitution, Sec. 21 [2] of BP 129,
Schneckenburger vs. Moran, 63 Phil 249)

B. APPELATE

1. Notice of Appeal:
a. From regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan in all criminal
cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or death, and those involving other
offenses which, although not so punished, arouse out of the same
occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on
the same occasion. (Sec. 17 of judiciary Act of 1948: Sec 9 [3] of
BP 129; Sec 5 [2-d], Article VIII, Constitution; Sec 3 [c] of rule
122; Sec 5 RA 8249) Exception: See People vs. Plateros, May 30,
1978, 83 SCRA 401.

b.Automatic review in criminal cases where the death penalty is

imposed by the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan. (RA
7659 and 8249; See Sec. 10 of Rule 1220

22
2. Petition of Review on certiorari

a. Appeal from the court of Appeals ( Sec 17 of Judiciary Act of 1948 as

amended by RA 5440; Sec. 5 [2] Article VIII, Constitution; Rule 45 of
1997 Rule of Civil Procedure)
b. Appeal from the Sandiganbayan on pure question of law, except cases
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
death. (Sec. 7 of PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249; Nunez vs.
Sandiganbayan. III SCRA 433; Rule 45 Id.
c. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts exercising original jurisdiction in the
following cases:

1. If no question of fact is involved and the case involves

a. Constitutionality or validity of treaty, international or executive

agreement, laws, presidential degree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance or regulation.
b. Legality of tax, impost, assessments or toll, or penalty in
regulation thereto.
c. Jurisdiction of lower court

2. All cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved.

(Sec. 5[2-a,b,c, and e], article VII, Constitution, Sec 9[3] of BP 129);
Rule 45 Id; Sec 2[c] of Rule 122)

3. Special Civil Action of Certiorari filed within thirty days (Rule 64,
1997 Rules of civil procedure)
a. Commission on election (Sec. 7, Article IX-A Constitution;
Aratue vs. Comelec, feb. 8, 1979, 88 SCRA 251)
b. Commission on Audit (Id. Constitution)

II. COURT OF APPEALS

A. ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive
Actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 9[2] of
BP 129; Rule 47 if Civil Procedure)

3. Concurrent
(with Supreme Court)
(See Sec.2 (a, b, c, d and e) above under 1-A supra
(with Supreme Court and Regional trial Courts)
(See Sec. f and g) above under 1-A supra0

B. APPELATE
1. Writ of Error

a. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts except those appealable to

Supreme Court under Sec. 1 and Sec. 2 (c) of 1-B above.
b. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts on Constitutional, tax,
jurisdictional questions involving questions of fact which should
be appealed to the Court of Appeals (Sec. 17 subparagraph 4 of

23
 the fourth paragraph of the judiciary act of 1948 as amended,
which was not intended to be excluded by Sec. 9 [3] of BP 129)
c. Appeals from decisions and orders from the Family Courts. (See
Sec. 14 of R.A. 8369)
2. Petition for Review

a. Appeals from the Civil Service Commission (RA 7902; Rule 43 of

1997 Rules of Civil procedure)
b. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts in cases appealed from
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuits Trial Courts, which are not a matter of right. (Sec. 22 of
BP 129; Rule 42 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Sec.3[b] of
Rule 122)
c. Appeals from the Court of Tax and quasi-judicial agencies.
Among these are:
1. Central board of Assessment Appeals
2. Securities and Exchange Commission
3. Office of the President
4. Land Registration Authority
5. Social Security Commission
6. Civil Aeronautics Board
7. Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer
8. National Electrification Administration
9. Energy Regulatory Board
10. National Telecommunications Commissions
11. Department of Agrarian Reform Under R.A. 6657
12. Government Service Insurance System
13. Employees Compensation Commission
14. Agricultural Inventions Board
15. Insurance Commission
16. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
17. Board of Investments
18. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
19. Voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (Rule 43 of 1997
Rules of civil procedure)

d. Appeals from the National Commission on Indigenous People

(NCIP) Se. 67 of R.A. 8317)
e. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases (Teresita G. Fabian vs. Disierto et al, G.R. No.
129742, September 16, 1998)

III. SANDIGANBAYAN

A. ORIGINAL

Exclusive
1. Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft), RA 1317 and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title
Vii of Revised Penal Code; and other offenses committed by public
officials and employees in relation to their office, and private
individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices and accessories
including those employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, where one or more of the accused are official occupying
the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent,

24
 acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense.

(1) Official of executive branch xxx classified as Grade “27” or

higher xxx specially including xxx
(2) Members of Congress xxx
(3) Members of Judiciary xxx
(4) Members of Constitutional Commission xxx
(5) All other national and local officials classified as grade”27” and
higher

2. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with

Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (Sec. 2 of RA 7975 as amended by
RA 8249)

Concurrent with Supreme Court

Petition for Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction
and other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo-
warranto arising in case under said Executive Order no. 1,2, 14 and 14-A (I.d as
amended by RA 8249)

B. APPELATE
Decisions and final orders or Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original
or appellate jurisdiction under PD 1606, as amended, shall be appealable to the
Sandiganbayan in the manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules of court ( Sec. 5 of RA
8249)

IV. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

A. ORIGINAL
1. Civil
a. exclusive

1. Subject of action not capable of pecuniary estimation;

2. Actions involving title or possession of real property or interested
therein where the accused value exceeds P 20,000.00 or in Metro
manila P 50,000.00 except forcible entry in unlawful detainer;
3. Actions of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where demand or
claim exceeds P 100,000.00; or in Metro Manila P 200,000.00;(See
RA 769 (Sec. 5) and S.C. Circular No. 21-99 hereunder
quoted below)
4. Matter of probate, testate, or intestate, where gross value of estate
exceeds p 100,000.00 or in Metro Manila P 2000,00.00
5. (Actions involving marriage and martial relations;)
6. Cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person
or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function;
7. Action and special proceeding falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of (Juvenile and Domestic relations Court and of Court
of Agrarian relations);
8. other cases where demand, exclusive of interest, damages,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, or value or property
in controversy exceeds P 100,000.00 or in Metro manila P 20000.00
(Sec. 19 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691)

25
 However, if the claim for damages, is the main cause f
action the amount thereof shall be considered in determining
the jurisdiction of the court (Administrative Circular No. 09-
94 dated June 14, 1994)

NOTE: “The provision of Section 5 Republic Act. No. 1691

prescribe that “After five years from the affectivity of this Act the
Jurisdiction Amounts mentioned in Sec. 19 (3), 1 (4) 2 and (8) 3
and sec. 33 (1) 4 of Batas Pambansa Bldg. 129 as Amended by
this Act. Shall be adjusted to two hundred thousand pesos
(P200, 000.00. five (5) years thereafter, such pesos (P
300,000.00): Prvided However, that in the case of Metro Manila,
the above mentioned Jurisdiction Amounts shall be adjusted
after 5 years from effectivity of this Act of Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.000

Section 8 of the same law states that “This act shall take
effect fifteen (15) days following its publications in the official
Gazette of in two (2) national newspaper of general circulation.”

Republic Act No. 7691 was published simultaneously in the

30 march 1994 issue in the Philippines Journal and Malaya the
law took effect 15 April 1994

Considering the provision of sec. 31, 5 Chapter 8, Book 1 of the

1987 Administrative Code, Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 7691 took effect on 20
March 1999.”

b. Concurrent
(with supreme Court)
1. action affecting ambassadors and other public minister and consuls;
(Sec. 21 [1] of BP 129)
(with Court and Court of Appeals)

1. certiorari prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts and

bodies.
2. Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto, Sec.9 [1] and sec. 21[1] of BP
129 (with Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)

NOTE: * Guardianship and adoption cases now under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Family Courts established by RA 8369 know as the “Family
Courts of 1997” approved on October 28, 1997. (See Sec. 5 of said law, which
provides the cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Family Courts)
See: EN BANC RES> A.M. No. 99-1-13 S.C. dtd Feb.9, 1999-Re: Transfer
to RTC of cases filing within the Jurisdiction of the Family Courts from the MTC’s.

Quoted as follows:
“WHERAS, on the other hand, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8369,
otherwise known as the Family Courts Acts of 1997, provides that family court
shall have original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases, regardless
of the penalty imposable by law:

26
 a) criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below
eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of
age, or one or more of the victim is a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense. Xxx
b) Cases against minors cognizable under the dangerous Drugs
Act, as amended; (RA 64250 [land]

1) Violation of republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the

“Special protection of Children against child abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act, as amended by Republic
Act 5 no. 7658.”

WHEREAS, pending the constitution and organization of the Family Courts

and the designation of branches of the Regional Trial Courts as Family
Courts in accordance with Section 17 (transitory Provisions) f R.A. No.
8369, there is need to provide guidelines in the hearing and determination
of criminal cases within the jurisdiction of family Courts have heretofore
been filed and pending before the First Level Trial Courts (MTC’s).”

2. Criminal

a. Exclusive

1. Criminal cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or

body. (sec. 20 of BP 129)

This include criminal cases where the penalty by law exceeds

six (6) years imprisonment irrespective of the fine. (R.A.
7691). These also include criminal cases not falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where
none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to
salary grade” 27” and higher. ( RA 7975 and 8249)

But in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine,

the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction if the amount of the
fine exceeds P 4,000.

(RA 7691 as clarified by Administrative circular No. 09-9 dated

June 14, 1994)

Note: family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over

criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below
eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of
age, or when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time
of commission of the offense. (Sec.5 (a) of RA 8369)

B. APPELATE

All cases decided by lower court (Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc.)In their
respective territorial jurisdiction. (Sec. 22 of BP 129)

27
V. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COUTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN
CITIES.

ORIGINAL
1. Civil
a. Exclusive

1. Actions involving personal property valued at not more than

P100,000.00 or in metro manila P 200,000.00 *(See CIRCULAR
No. 21-99)

2. Action demanding sums of money not exceeding (P100,000.00 or

in metro manila, P 200,000.00; in both cases, exclusive of
interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs,
the amount of which must be specially alleged, but the filing
fees thereon shall be paid.*

3. Actions involving title possession of real property where the

assessed value does not exceed P 20,000.00 or in Metro Manila
P50,000.00

4. Provisional remedies in principal actions within their jurisdiction,

and in proper cases, such as preliminary attachment, preliminary
injunction, appointment or receive and delivery of personal
property. (Rules 57, 58, 59 and 60)

5. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, with jurisdiction to resolve

issue of possession.

6. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross value of

estate does not exceed P 100,000.00 or in metro manila P
200,000.00 (Sec.33 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691).

7. Inclusion and exclusion of voters (Sec. 138 of BP 881)

*NOTE: “The provision of Section 5 of Republic Act 7691 prescribe b

that “After five years (5) from the affectivity of this Act the
jurisdiction amounts mentioned in Sec. 19 (3), 1 (4), 2 and (8)3 and
Sec. 33 (1) 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act,
shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200, 000.00).
Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdiction amount shall be adjusted
further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300, 000.00): provided,
however, that in the cases of Metro Manila, the above mentioned
jurisdiction amounts shall be adjusted after (5) years from the
affectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,
000.00)

Section 8 of the same law states that “This Act shall be take
effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
gazette or in two (2) national newspaper of general circulation.”

28
 Republic Act 7691 was published simultaneously in the 30 March
1994 issue of the Philippines journal and Malaya. The law took on
15 April 1994.

Considering the provisions of section 31, (5) Chapter 8, Book 1 of

the 1987 Administrative Code, Section 5 of RA No. 7691 took effect
on 20 March 1999.

b. Concurrent
(With Regional Trial Courts)

*NONE

c. Delegated
Cadastal and land registration cases assigned BY Supreme Court
where is no controversy or opposition and in lots valued at not more than
P100, 000 .00 (Sec. 34 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691)

d. Special
Petition for Habeas Corpus in the absence of all regional Trial
Judges. (Sec. 35 of BP 129)

2. Criminal
a. Exclusive
1. All violation of city or municipal ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction;
2. all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than six (6)
years irrespective of the fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties and civil liability arising there from; provided, however, that in
offenses involving damages to property through criminal negligence they shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction. (Sec. 32 of BP as amended by RA 7691)
3. These include offenses committed not failing with the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where none of the accused are occupying
positions grade 26 and below corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher. (As
amended RA 7675 and 8249)
4. However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine not
exceeding P4, 000.00 the metropolitan trial courts etc. have jurisdiction.
(Administrative Circular no. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994)

b. Concurrent
(With Fiscals and state Prosecutor) – On preliminary investigation.

Except Metropolitan Trial Courts in the NATIONAL Capital Region, conduct of

preliminary investigation on crimes cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts.
(Section 37 of BP 129; Section 2 of Rule 112). Preliminary Investigation of
crimes within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is conducted by the
officer of the special Prosecution under the Ombudsman. (Sec. 11 of RA
9770)

c. Special
Application for bail in the absence of all Trail Judges. (Sec. 35 of BP 129)

3. Summary Procedure (Revised Rule on Summary Procedure)

a. Civil

29
 1. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of
the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to
be recovered; but attorney’s fees awarded shall not
exceed P20,000.00 (Revised effective November 15,
1991)
2. All other cases, except probate proceeding. Where
total claim does not exceed P10,000.00

b. Criminal
1. Traffic Violations;
2. Rentals law violations;
3. Violation of City and Municipal Ordinances;
4. All other case where the penalty does not exceed 6 months
and / or fine of P1,000.00

Offenses involving damages to property thru reckless imprudence where

the impossible fine does not exceed P10, 000.00.

OUTLINE OF LECTURE ON JURISDICTION OF FIRST LEVEL COURTS UNDER

P.D. NO. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

A. Criminal Jurisdiction defined – is the authority or power of the court

to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.
(Peo. Vs. Mariano, L-40527, June 0, 1976, 76 SCRA 600-604). The general
rule is that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by:
i. The geographical limits of the territory over which it
provides, and
ii. The action (civil and criminal) it is empowered to hear and
decide

B. Elements of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases – The elements of

jurisdiction of a trail court the subject matter in criminal cases are:
i. the nature of offense and/or penalty attached thereto; and
ii. The fact that the offense has been committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.

The non-concurrence of either of these two elements may be challenged

by an accused at any stage of the proceedings in the courts below or on
appeal. Failing on one of them, a judgment of conviction is null and void.
(Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney General, 20Phil. 562 U.S vs. Jayme, 24
Phil. 90. 90)

C. Requisites for the valid exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction.

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matters:

a. Conferred by Law
b. Determined by –
1. The law in force at the time of the commencement of the
action and not by the law at the time of the commission of the
offense. (Peo. Vs. Fontanilla, 23 SCRA 1227, (1988); Peo. Vs.
Lagon, 185 SCRA 422, (1990)
2. Not affected by subsequent law removing jurisdiction.

30
 3. The allegation in the complainant or information
characterize or determine the crime to be prosecuted and the court
before which it must be tried and not by the result of proof
4. The nature of the offense imposable penalty; salary grade
of accused public officer or employee.
5. Estoppel

2. Jurisdiction over the place or territory where the offense was

committed
i. People vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193 (1977)
ii. People vs. Pena, 80 SCRA 598 (1977)

3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; how acquired:

i. Actual restraint;
ii. Voluntary surrender;
iii. Filling a pleading for the court to acquire jurisdiction.

Santiago vs. Vasquez, 217 CSRA 633 (1993)

In order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the

complaint must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or
not the facts set out and the punishment provided for by law foe such
facts within the jurisdiction on the court where the complain is filed.

II. JURISDICTION OF FIRST LEVEL TRIAL COURT (MTC’s) UNDER P.D

NO. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A NO. 8294.

A. Effectivety of R.A. No. 8294: July 7, 1997

B. Cases:
1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition disposition, or possession of
low powered firearm, such as rim fire handgun, .380 and other firearm of similar
firearm firepower, parts of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearm or ammunition
provided no other crime was committed – prision correctional in its maximum
period (4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years) and fine of not less than P15,
000.00 (Sec.1)
People vs. Quizada, 259 SCRA 191 (1996), Abrogated.
2. Unlawfully or knowingly allowing by the owner, president, manager,
director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm,
company, corporation or entity the used of such low powered firearm
owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity by any person found
guilty of illegal possession of firearm or the use of such low powered
unlicensed firearm or firearm without legal authority to be carried outside
of his residence in the course if his employment – same penalty as in par.
1.
3. Unauthorized carrying of any licensed firearm outside residence 1 day to 6
months. (Sec. 4)
4. Unlawful tampering, changing, defacing or erasing the serial number of
any firearm – Prision correctional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) (Sec. 5)
5. Unlawful repacking, altering or modifying the composition of any lawfully
manufactured explosives – (same penalty as paragraph 4, Sec. 5)

C. Coverage of the term unlicensed firearm

1. Firearm with expired licensed or

31
 2. Unauthorized use of license firearm in the commission of
other crime (Sec. 6)

D. Rules and Regulations – DOJ and DILG shall provide such rules.

E. Classification of Firearms. (Please refer to the attached Annexes)

In a diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .
44, .45 and also lesser caliber firearms but considered powerful such as
caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capacity of
full automatic and by burst of two or three: provided, however, that no
other crime was committed by the person arrested.

If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm,

such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.

If the violation of this section is in furtherance of or incident to, or in

connection with the crime of rebellion on insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of
the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’etat.

“The penalty f arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person

who shall any carry licensed without legal authority therefore.”

Section 2. Section 3 of Presidential Degree No. 1866, as amended, is

herby further amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 3 Unlawful Manufactures, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or

Possession of Explosives. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand Pesos (P50,
000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture,
assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade, rifle grenade
and other explosives, including but not limited to pillbox, Molotov cocktail
bombs, fire bomb’s or other incendiary devices capable of producing
destructive effect on contiguous object or causing injury or death to any
person.”

When a person commits any of the crimes defined the Revised Penal
Code or Special Penal Laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.

If the violation of this section is in further of, or incident to, or in connection with
the crime rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall
be absorbed as an element of attempted soup d’etat.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager,
director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation
or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the explosives owned by such
firm, company, corporation or entity allow any of the explosives owned by any persons
found guilty of violation the provision of the preceding paragraphs.

32
 Sec. 3. Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, amended, and is hereby
further amended to read as follows:

Sec. 5 Tampering of Firearms Serial Number – the penalty of prision

correctional shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully tamper, change,
deface or erase the serial number of any firearm.

Sec. 4. Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended is hereby further

amended t read as follows:

Sec. 6 repacking or altering the composition of lawfully Manufactured

Explosives. The penalty of prision correctional shall be imposed upon the person who
shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the composition of any lawfully repack, alter or
modify the composition of any lawfully manufactured explosives.

Sec. 5 Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. The term unlicensed firearm
shall include:
1. Firearm with expired license, or
2. Unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of the crime.

Sec. 6 Rules and Regulation. The department of justice and the department of
Interior and Local Government shall jointly issue, within 90 days after the
approval of this act, the necessary rules and regulations pertaining to the
administrative aspects of the provisions hereof, furnishing the Committee of
Public Order and Security and the committee on justice and Human Rights of
Both Houses of Congress copies of such rules and regulations within 30 days
from the promulgation hereof.

Sec. 7. Separability Clause – if, for any person, any section or provision of this
Act is declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions
thereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and
effect.

Sec. 8 Repealing Clause – all laws, decrees, orders rules and regulations or parts
thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed,
amended or modified accordingly.

Approved:

Sgd. JOSE DEVENECIA, JR.

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Sgd. ERNESTO M. MACEDA

President of the Senate

/bulate_2420

33