There are 4 kinds of jurisdiction:

1.) As to cases tried:

a. General (all cases)
b. limited (specific cases.)

2.) As to nature of cause:

b. a. Original (where the case began)
appellate (when brought to a higher court for review)

3.) As to extent of exercise:

a. Exclusive (limited to a particular court)
b. concurrent (when different courts can try the same subject matter at the same time
and place; the court whose jurisdiction was first called on takes over the case and the
other courts won't touch it.)

4.) As to situs:
a. territorial (limited to the area)
b. extra-territorial (extends beyond the territorial limits.)

Jurisdiction versus exercise of jurisdiction

(1) Jurisdiction if the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this power or authority
is the exercise of jurisdiction.

Error of jurisdiction vs. error of judgment

(1) An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court
without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs when the court exercises a jurisdiction not
conferred upon it by law, or when the court or tribunal although with jurisdiction, acts in excess
of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or jurisdiction.

(2) An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of
its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment
include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings.

(3) Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal; errors of jurisdiction are correctible only by
the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Any judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity
and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal; the only exception is when the party
raising the issue is barred by estoppel.

(4) When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter
of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that
jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely
errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment
are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

(1) Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction
of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

(2) The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising
its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some
aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court (Omictin vs. CA, GR 148004,
January 22, 2007).

Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction / continuity of jurisdiction

(1) In view of the principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This
principle also means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from
attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that
jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

(2) Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the
case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the
judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it (Echegaray
vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

SANDIGANBAYAN
 1. The Sandiganbayan is a court that exists by constitutional fiat, specifically Section 5,
Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, which provides
as follows:

SECTION 5. The National Assembly shall create a special court, to be

known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and
civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as
may be determined by law.

2. The Sandiganbayan is a collegial court presently composed of seven

divisions of three members each. The term "collegial" relates to a group
of colleagues or a "collegium," which is "an executive body with each
member having approximately equal power and authority. As such, the
members of the anti-graft court act on the basis of consensus or majority
rule.

3. Sandiganbayan as sui generis in the judicial structure. it is not under the Article on the
Judiciary (Article X) but under the article on Accountability of Public Officers. More, the
Constitution ordains it to be "a special court."

REASON FOR CREATION:

-Its creation was intended to pursue and attain the highest norms of official
conduct required of public officers and employees, based on the concept that
public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times
accountable to the people.

The Court has held that an offense is deemed to be committed in relation to the public office of
the accused when:
A) office is an element of the crime charged;
B) when there is a direct or intimate relation between the crime and the office.

PP v. Montejo - although public office is not an element of the offense charged, as long as
the offense charged in the information is intimately connected with the office of the offender
and perpetrated while he was in the performance, though improper or
irregular, of his official functions, the accused is held to have been indicted for an offense
committed in relation to his office.
LACSON VS SANDIGANBAYAN: the requisites for a case to fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under R.A.8249 were enumerated as follows:

1. The offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended

(the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on
ill-gotten wealth); ( c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery); (d) E.O. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A,
issued in 1986;( sequestration cases or ( e) some other offense or felony whether simple or
complexed with other crimes.

2. The offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a
public official or employee holding any of the positions enumerated in
paragraph a of Section 4.

4. The offense is committed in relation to office.

5. The information: (a) alleges damage to the government or bribery; or (b) alleges
damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount exceeding One million pesos (Pl,000,000.00).

NOTE: The latest amendment to P.D. 1606 was R.A. 10660 issued on 16 April 2015. While R.A.
10660 retained the list of officials under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, it streamlined the
anti-graft court's jurisdiction by adding the following proviso in Section 4 of P.D. 1606:

Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the
information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges
damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or
acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (Pl,000,000.00).

Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases falling under the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court under this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than where
the official holds office. In effect, the latest amendment transferred the jurisdiction over cases
classified by the amending law's sponsors as minor to regional trial courts, which have sufficient
capability and competence to handle those cases.

Test to determine if SANDIGANBAYAN has jurisdiction over a case:

Does the Information allege a close or intimate connection between the offense charged and
the accused's public office?"

ADAZA VS SANDIGANBAYAN: this Court clarified the third element - that the offense committed
is in relation to office:
 - R.A. 8249 mandates that for as long as the offender's public office is intimately
connected with the offense charged or is used to facilitate the commission of said
offense and the same is properly alleged in the information, the Sandiganbayan acquires
jurisdiction. Indeed, the law specifically states that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over all "other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of Section 4
in relation to their office." Public office, it bears reiterating, need not be an element of
the offense charged.

REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
3. Jurisdiction over the territory

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

- Refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case. It
imports the power and authority to hear and determine issues of facts and law and
pronounce the judgment/impose punishment.

HOW CONFERRED:

- It is conferred by law or by the sovereign authority which organized the court and is
given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.
- it must be clear; cannot presumed toe exist
1. It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or dimisnished by any
act of the parties. ( Tolentino vs SSS, 138 S 428);
2. It cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise (
Fuzukume vs PP, 474 SCRA 570)
3. It is not conferred by administrative policy of any trial court ( Cudia vs CA, 284 SCRA 173)
4. It is not conferred by the rules but by law. ( Padunan vs DARAB, GR 132163, 1-28-03)

HOW JURIS OVER THE SM DETERMINED:

- it is determined by the allegations of the complaint or info ( whether the

facts set out and the punishment provided by law for such act fall w/n the
 juris of the court), and once it is so shown, the court may validly take
cognizance of the case
- we consider the penalty which may be imposed upon the accused and not
the actual penalty imposed after the trial., on the basis of the facts alleged in
the information
- it is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that
determine the nature of the action
- jurisdiction to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the
time of the institution of the action and not during the arraignment or at the
time of its commission.

In Sandiganbayan, both nature of the offense and the position occupied by the accused are
conditions sine qua non before it could take cognizance of the case.

OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

(1) When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the same. (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The court
may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take
cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a clearly recognized right to
determine its own jurisdiction.

(2) Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
for the first time on appeal. When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter, it is common reason that the court cannot remand the case to another
court with the proper jurisdiction. Its only power is to dismiss and not to make any other order.

(3) Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to dismiss
shall include all grounds then available and all objections not so included shall be deemed
waived. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is however, a defense not
barred by the failure to invoke the same in a motion to dismiss already filed. Even if a motion to
dismiss was filed and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a party may, when he files
an answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is not
barred under te omnibus motion rule.

EFFECT OF ESTOPPEL ON OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

(1) The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to recognition of that court’s
jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the court’s jurisdiction. Jurisprudence however,
did not intend this statement to lay down the general rule. (Lapanday Agricultural &
Development Corp. v. Estita, 449 SCRA 240; Mangaiag v. Catubig-Pastoral, 474 SCRA 153). The
Sibonghanoy applies only to exceptional circumstances. The general rule remains: a court’s lack
of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal (Francel Realty
Corp. v. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424; Concepcion v. Regalado, GR 167988, Feb. 6, 2007).

(2) The doctrine of estoppels by laches in relation to objections to jurisdiction first appeared
in the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, where the SC barred a belated
objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision was rendered by the
court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief from
the court and after participating in all stages of the proceedings. This doctrine is based upon
grounds of public policy and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting
a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

(3) The SC frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one’s case for decision, and
then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not
(BPI v. ALS Mgt. & Devt. Corp., 427 SCRA 564).

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

HOW ACQUIRED:

1) By compulsory process like warrant of arrest

2) Through voluntary appearance ( when he surrenders to the police or to the court)

-It requires that the person charged with the offense must have been brought to its forum for
trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary appearance/ submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.

- it is only when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person that an accused may
invoke the processes of the court.

NOTE: making a special appearance in court to question the juris of the court over the person of
the accused is not voluntary appearance as when a motion to quash was filed precisely on that
ground or when he files a motion to quash the warrant of arrest because it is the very legality of
the court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in
the motion. ( Miranda vs. Tuliao, GR 158763, 3-31-06

CUSTODY OF LAW Jurisdiction over the person

1 Accomplished either by his arrest or Acquired upon his arrest or voluntary

voluntary appearance appearance
 2 It is required before the court can act required for the adjudication of reliefs
upon the application for bail, but is
not required for the adjudication of
other reliefs sought by the defendant
where the mere application thereof
constitutes a waiver of the defense of
lack of juris over the person of the
accused.

3 One can be under the custody of the
law but not yet subject to juris of the
court, such as when a person arrested
by virtue files a motion to quash the
warrant before arraignment
One can be under the juris of the courtand yet
not in the custody of law such as when
accused escapes custody after his trial
commenced.

4 It 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.

-it is literally custody over the body of

the accused. It includes, bt nt limited
to detention.

For bail purposes: a person applying for bail must be in the custody of the law or otherwise
deprived of his liberty.

Reason: because the purpose of bail is to secure one’s release and it wld be incongruous
to grant bail to one who is free. Thus, bail is the security required and given for the release of a
person who is in the custody of law.

: The rationale behind this special rule on bail is that it discourages and prevents resort
to the former pernicious practice wherein the accused could just send another in his stead to
post his bail, without recognizing the jurisdiction of the court by his personal appearance
therein and compliance with the requirements therefor
 : If we allow the granting of bail to persons not in the custody of the law, it is
foreseeable that many persons who can afford the bail will remain at large, and could elude
being held to answer for the commission of the offense if ever he is proven guilty.

GENERAL RULE: one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court.

- In cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the general rule applies, i.e., the
accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking
affirmative relief. Notwithstanding this, there is no requirement for him to be in the custody of
the law.

EXCEPTIONS to the rule that filing a pleading seeking affirmative reliefs constitutes voluntary
appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court.
This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of
the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These pleadings are:

(1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included;
(2) in criminal cases,
a. motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the accused; and

# The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute a
waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person.

b. motions to quash a warrant of arrest.

- The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court
process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very
issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.

MiRANDA VS Tuliao, GR 158763, march 31, 2006

JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY;

- The offense or any one of its essential ingredients must have been
committed w/n the court’s territorial jurisdiction
 - Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction, and that the
juris of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the
complaint or info. ( Campanano Jr. vs Datuin, 536 S 471)
- A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
committed outside its territorial jurisdiction.
- The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of
the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.

GENERAL RULE: the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is shown, the court may validly take
cognizance of the case.

HOWEVER, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

PURPOSE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

- Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure of 2000 provides
that [s]ubject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential
ingredients occurred. This fundamental principle is to ensure that the defendant is not compelled
to move to, and appear in, a different court from that of the province where the crime was
committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other
evidence in another place.1 This principle echoes more strongly in this case, where, due to
distance constraints, coupled with his advanced age and failing health, petitioner was unable to
present his defense in the charges against him.
Hector Treas vs PP, GR No. 195002, January 25, 2012

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Where the offense was committed under the circs. Enumerated under
Art. 2 of RPC, the offense shall be cognizable by the court where the
criminal action is first filed.
- The crime is committed in a moving plane, ship, train or private vehicle passing
through several territories (any of the territories can be the place of trial.)
- Cases of piracy, which is an international crime and can be tried anywhere in
the world.

2. Where the SC, pursuant to its constitutional powers orders a change of

venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice ( sec 5(4), Art. VIII,
1987 Constn)
3. Libel cases.
4. Complex or continuing crimes (the place may be where the accused is
found and the venue is where any part of the crime was committed; for a
complex crime, the court with the jurisdiction to impose the highest
penalty for the crime.)
5. Where the law provides