CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
criminal actions of libel, the Regional Trial Court
JURISDICTION
(5) People vs. MTC of Quezon City, Br. 32, et.
al., G.R. No. 123263, Dec. 16, 1996
Facts:
On January 30, 1995, an Information charging libel
was filed against Isah V. Red in the RTC of
Quezon City. Red filed a motion to quash the
information on the ground that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the offense. The RTC Judge found
merit on the motion and remanded the case to the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The
Judge based his decision on Sec.2 of R.A. No. 7691
which says that "all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years,
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of
other imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind,
nature, value or accessory thereof is vested in the
Municipal Trial Court."
Then, the private prosecutor filed a "Manifestation
and Motion to Remand" praying for the case to be
returned to the RTC. The prosecution invoked in
his motion Art. 360 of the RPC, and several cases
to support their stand that it is the RTC which has
exclusive jurisdiction on libel cases. But, the lower
court denied the motion. The respondent lower
court decided that R.A. No. 7691 impliedly
repealed Art. 360 of the RPC. The new law
provides a lighter penalty to the offense making it
the proper law to be applied to the case. The
private prosecutor filed a motion for
reconsideration but was again denied and the
prosecution was ordered to present its next
witness. Hence, this petition to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not R.A. No. 7691 repealed the
provision on Art. 360 of the RPC mandating that
in cases of libel, criminal and civil actions should be
filed in the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of
the place where the offense was committed.
Who has exclusive jurisdiction over
or the Metropolitan Trial Court?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.
The Court held that R.A. 7691 did not repeal
Art.360 of the RPC. While libel has the penalty of
six months and one day to four years and two
months, making it triable under municipal trial
courts, R.A. No. 7691 excludes cases falling within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. Prior
decisions also say that the expansion of the MTC's
jurisdiction conferred by the new law cannot be
applied to libel cases.
Further, the Court also cited Administrative Order
No. 104-96 which provides that "libel cases shall be
tried by the Regional Trial Courts having
jurisdiction over them to the exclusion of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts." So, the jurisdiction over libel
cases falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts.
(6) Conrad And Company, Inc.
Vs. Hon. Court Of Appeals, Fitrite Inc., And
Victoria Biscuits Co., Inc.
Facts:
Private respondents, FITRITE Inc. and Victoria
Biscuits Co., Inc., are engaged in the business of
manufacturing, selling and distributing biscuits
and cookies bearing the trademark “SUNSHINE”
in the Philippines. Petitioner, CONRAD AND
COMPANY, Inc. is engaged in the business of
importing, selling and distributing biscuits and
cookies in the Philippines.
Private respondents were granted the trademark
“SUNSHINE” to be used on biscuits and cookies by
the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer (BPTTT). For quite some
time, the trademark “SUNSHINE” has been used
by the private respondents in the concept of an
owner on its biscuits and cookies.
Meanwhile, petitioner was
designated as the exclusive importer and dealer of
the products of “Sunshine Biscuits, Inc.” for sale in
the Philippines.
Private respondents then filed a case
before the Regional Trial Court, seeking for
remedies against infringement under Sec. 23 of
Republic Act No. 166, as amended, as well as of the
remedies against unfair competition under Sec. 29
of the same statue.
Petitioner then filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint invoking, among others, the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether or not the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction is applicable in the case at bar.
Held:
No, the doctrine finds no merit in the case at bar.
While an application for the administrative
cancellation of a registered trademark falls under
the exclusive cognizance of BPTTT, an action,
however, for infringement or unfair competition, as
well as the remedy for injunction and relief for
damages, is explicitly and unquestionably within
the competence and jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
An application with BPTTT for an administrative
cancellation of a registered trade mark cannot per
se have the effect of restraining or preventing the
courts from the exercise of their lawfully conferred
jurisdiction. A contrary rule would unduly expand
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which, simply
expressed, would merely behoove regular courts, in
controversies involving specialized disputes, to
defer to the findings of resolutions of
administrative tribunals on certain technical
matters.
(7) G.R. No. 169004
People Of The Philippines Vs. Sandiganbayan
And Rolando Plaza
Facts:
Private respondent, Rolando Plaza, is a member of
the Sanguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu
with a salary grade 25. He was charged in the
Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 89 of
Presidential Decree No. 1445, or the Auditing
Code of the Philippines for his failure to liquidate
the cash advances he received.
Private respondent then questioned the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan over the offense charged.
Private respondent contends that he should not fall
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as he
does not belong the salary grade 27 and that his
violation is not among those enumerated by law to
be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan even if the
offender is below salary grade 27.
Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over violations of the Auditing Code of the
Philippines committed by a public official below
salary grade 27.
Held:
Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
violations of the Auditing Code of the Philippines
committed by a public official below salary grade
27.
The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is
to be determined at the time of the institution of
the action, not at the time of the commission of the
offense. The case having been instituted on March
25, 2004 the provisions of Republic Act No. 8249
shall govern.Those that are classified as Grade 26
and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the
positions thus enumerated by RA No. 8249.
Among those enumerated are members if the
Sangunuiang Panlungsod. In connection therewith,
Section 4 (b) of the same law provides that other
offenses or felonies committed by public officials
and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in
relation to their office also fall under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
(8) The People Of The Philippines Vs.
Honorable Gregorio Montejo, Judge
Facts:
Mayor Leroy Brown of Basilan City and several
detectives were charged with murder for the
killing of Yakan Awalin Tebag. Mayor Brown
ordered his men to arrest and detain Tebag. He
was also subjected to severe torture during the
course of his investigation held at a police
substation which later resulted to his death. The
Mayor and his men then brought him to a nearby
isolated field to make it appear that Tebag had
been killed during an encounter.
Issue:
Was the offense committed in relation to their
public office?
Decision:
YES. The offense was committed in relation to
their public office. While public office is not an
element of the crime of murder, the offense charged
in the amended information is intimately connected
with their respective offices and was perpetrated
while they were in the performance, though
improper or irregular, of their official functions.
Indeed, they had no personal motive to commit the
crime and they would not have committed it had
they not held their aforesaid offices. The co-
defendants of Mayor Brown obeyed his
instructions because he was their superior officer as
Mayor of Basilan City.
(9) G.R. Nos. 118013-14 People Of The
Philippines Vs. Hon. Demosthenes L.
Magallanes,
Facts:
Two informations for kidnapping for ransom with
murder were filed in the Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod City against fourteen persons, five of
whom are members of the Philippine National
Police. The two cases was consolidated.
While the trial was on going, the prosecution file a
motion for the transmittal of the case to the
Sandiganbayan on the ground that the trial court
has no jurisdiction over the cases because the
offense charged were committed in relation to the
office of the accused PNP officers.
Issue:
Whether or not the crimes charged falls under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Held:
No, the case is no longer cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.
Ordinarily, jurisdiction once acquired is not
affected by subsequent legislative enactment
placing jurisdiction in another tribunal. It remains
with the court until the case is finally
terminated. Hence, the Sandiganbayan or the
courts, as the case may be, cannot be divested of
jurisdiction over cases filed before them by reason
of R.A. No. 7975. They retain their jurisdiction
until the end of the litigation.
In the instant case, the Sandiganbayan has not yet
acquired jurisdiction over the subject criminal
cases, as the informations were filed not before it
but before the Regional Trial Court. Even if we
labor under the foregoing assumption that the
informations in the subject cases do charge the
respondent PNP officers with offenses committed
in relation to their office so that jurisdiction thereof
would fall under the Sandiganbayan, and assuming
further that the informations had already been filed
with the said tribunal but hearing thereon has not
begun yet, the Sandiganbayan can no longer
proceed to hear the cases in view of the express
provision of Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975. That
section provides that upon the effectivity of the
Act, all criminal cases in which trial has not yet
begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to
the proper courts. Hence, cases which were
previously cognizable by the Sandiganbayan under
P.D. No. 1606, as amended, but are already under
the jurisdiction of the courts by virtue of the
amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7975, shall be
referred to the latter courts if hearing thereon has
not yet been commenced in the Sandiganbayan.
It would, therefore, be a futile exercise to transfer
the cases to the Sandiganbayan because the same
would anyway be transferred again to the Regional
Trial Court pursuant to Section 7 of the new law in
relation to Section 2 thereof.
(10) Bartolome vs. People 142 SCRA 459 (1986)
Facts:
Rolando P. Bartolome and Elino Coronel Y
Santon were charged with the crime of
Falsification of Official document as defined and
penalized under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code. It was alleged that the two
conspired to make it appear on the CS Personal
Data Sheet that Bartolome has taken and passed
the Career Service Professional Qualifying
Examination with a rating of 73.35% and that he
was a 4th year AB student at the Far Eastern
University.
 The charges were filed in the
Sandiganbayan.
Issue:
Whether or not the offense charged falls under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Held:
No, the offense is not cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.
Under Section 4 of P.D. 1606, which created this
special court:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction — TheSandiganbayan
shall have jurisdiction over:
(a) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 1379;
(b) Crime committed by public officers and
employees, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations,
embraced in Title VI I of the Revised Penal Code,
whether simple or complexed with other crimes;
and (c) Other crimes or offenses committed by
public officers or employees, including those
employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, in relation to their office. (Emphasis
supplied).
A careful reading of Republic Act No. 3019
and Republic Act No. 1379 will reveal that
nowhere in either statute is falsification of an
official document mentioned, even tangentially or
by implication.
Title VII, Book Two, of the Revised Penal
Code defines and penalizes a wide range of offenses
committed by public officers, from knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment under Article 204 to
abuses against chastity in Article 245, but
falsification of an official document is not included.
This is punished in Article 171 under Title IV,
Book Two, on Crimes against Public Interest.
(11) People Vs. Leoparte,
G.R. No. 85328, July 4, 1990
Facts:
Bienvenido Leoparte was charged and convicted
with the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape by the Regional Trial Court of Lucena. It was
alleged in the information that the accused,
Leoparte, pulled the victim, Marinel Idea, while she
was on her way home and traversing the railroad
tracks. The accused then dragged her to the nearby
banana plantation where the accused satisfied his
carnal desires against the victim’s will. Thereafter,
the accused brought the victim to his sister’s home
where he again had carnal knowledge with the
victim.
The following day, the accused brought the victim
to his uncle’s home and again succeeded to have
carnal knowledge with the victim against her will.
After two day, the accused the brought the victim
to the house of his parents where he again
successfully satisfied his lascivious desires against
the victim. All the incidents took place with the
accused purporting that he and the victim had
eloped and were planning to get married.
Issues:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction over the case.
Held:
Yes, The Regional Trial Court has lawfully
acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Article 344 was not enacted for the specific purpose
of benefiting the accused. When it is said that the
requirement in Article 344 that a complaint of the
offended party or her relatives is jurisdictional,
what is meant is that it is the complaint that starts
the prosecutor proceeding. It is not the complaint
which confers jurisdiction on the court to try the
case. The court's jurisdiction is vested in it by the
Judiciary Law. Such condition has been imposed
out of consideration for the offended woman and
her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage
in silence rather than go through with the scandal
of a public trial.
The overriding consideration in
determining the issue of whether or not the
condition precedent prescribed in Article 344 has
been complied with is the intent of the aggrieved
party to seek judicial redress for the affront
committed. In the case at bar, the active
cooperation of the offended party in the
prosecution of the case, as witness, clearly indicates
said intent. Consequently, the failure of the accused
to raise said issue at the trial bars him from raising
it on appeal.
(12) G.R. No. 192565 February 28, 2012
Union Bank Of The, Philippines And Desi
Tomas Vs. People Of The Philippines
Facts:
Desi Tomas was charged with perjury for making a
false narration in a Certificate against Forum
Shopping. It was alleged that Tomas stated under
oath that the Union Bank of the Philippines has not
commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in another tribunal or
agency aside from that which is filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for the
collection of sum of money with prayer of writ of
replevin filed against Eddie and Eliza Tamondong
and a John Doe.
Tomas filed a motion to quash arguing that the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City does not
have jurisdiction over the case as, though it was
notarized in Makati, the Certificate against Forum
Shopping was used or submitted before the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
Issue:
Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati City has jurisdiction over the case at bar.
Held:
Yes, the Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction
to try and decide the case at bar.
Tomas’ deliberate and intentional assertion of
falsehood was allegedly shown when she made the
false declarations in the Certificate against Forum
Shopping before a notary public in Makati City,
despite her knowledge that the material statements
she subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus,
Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati
City is the proper court to try the perjury case
against Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110
of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as
all the essential elements constituting the crime of
perjury were committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.
(13) Miranda Et Al. V. Tuliao
Facts:
Two informations for murder were filed against
SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, SPO1 Ferdinand Marzan,
SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Micu,
SPO2 RodelMaderal, and SPO4 Emilio Ramirez
for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and ElizerTuliao
in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago
City. The venue was later transferred to Manila.
On 22 April 1999, the RTC of Manila convicted all
of the accused and sentenced them to two counts of
reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was
yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large. The
case was appealed to this Court on automatic
review where we, on 9 October 2001, acquitted the
accused therein on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Sometime in September 1999, SPO2 Maderal was
arrested. On 27 April 2001, he executed a sworn
confession and identified petitioners Jose C.
Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto
P. Dalmacio, a certain Boyetdela Cruz and Amado
Doe, as the persons responsible for the deaths of
Vicente Bauzon and ElizerTuliao. Respondent
Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder
against petitioners, Boyetdela Cruz, and Amado
Doe, and submitted the sworn confession of SPO2
Maderal. On 25 June 2001, Acting Presiding Judge
Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants of arrest
against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
On 29 June 2001, petitioners filed an urgent
motion to complete preliminary investigation, to
reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the
warrants of arrest.
In the hearing of the urgent motion on 6 July 2001,
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners
and issued a Joint Order denying said urgent
motion on the ground that, since the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion
cannot be properly heard by the court.
Issue:
Whether or not the court has lawfully acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Held:
Yes, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person
of the accused is deemed waived by the accused
when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative
relief, except in cases when he invokes the special
jurisdiction of the court by impugning such
jurisdiction over his person. Therefore, in narrow
cases involving special appearances, an accused can
invoke the processes of the court even though there
is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody
of the law. However, if a person invoking the
special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he
must first submit himself to the custody of the law.
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.
The following cases best illustrate this point,
where we granted various reliefs to accused who
were not in the custody of the law, but were
deemed to have placed their persons under the
jurisdiction of the court. Note that none of these
cases involve the application for bail, nor a motion
to quash an information due to lack of jurisdiction
over the person, nor a motion to quash a warrant of
arrest.
(14) Allado And Mendoza Vs. Hon. Roberto C.
Diokno
Facts:
Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L.
Mendoza, alumni of the College of Law, University
of the Philippines, are partners of the Law Firm of
Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In the practice of
their profession, and on the basis of an alleged
extrajudicial confession of a security guard, they
have been accused of the heinous crime of
kidnapping with murderby the Presidential Anti-
Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested
without bail by respondent judge. They were
alleged that they planned and conspired with other
suspects to abduct and kill the German national
Alexander Van Twest in order to eliminate him
after forcing the victim to sign several documents
transferring ownership of several properties
amounting to several million pesos and caused the
withdrawal of P5M deposit from the victim's bank
account.
Petitioners contend that respondent judge acted
with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of
jurisdiction in "whimsically holding that there is
probable cause against petitioners without
determining the admissibility of the evidence
against petitioners and without even stating the
basis of his findings”.
Petitioners maintain that the records of the
preliminary investigation which respondent judge
solely relied upon failed to establish probable cause
against them to justify the issuance of the warrant
of arrest.
Issue:
Whether or not probable cause is present to
warrant the order of arrest against the petitioners.
Held:
No.Probable cause may not be established simply
by showing that a trial judge subjectively believes
that he has good grounds for his action. Good faith
is not enough. If subjective good faith alone were
the test, the constitutional protection would be
demeaned and the people would be "secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects" only in the
fallible discretion of the judge.On the contrary, the
probable cause test is an objective one, for in order
that there be probable cause the facts and
circumstances must be such as would warrant a
belief by a reasonably discreet and prudent man
that the accused is guilty of the crime which has
just been committed. This, as we said, is the
standard. Hence, if upon the filing of the
information in court the trial judge, after reviewing
the information and the documents attached
thereto, finds that no probable cause exists must
either call for the complainant and the witnesses
themselves or simply dismiss the case. There is no
reason to hold the accused for trial and further
expose him to an open and public accusation of the
crime when no probable cause exists.
(15) GR 184800 Bonifacio v RTC of Makati
Facts:
Petitioners Bonifacio et al were charged with the
crime of libel after private respondent Gimenez, on
behalf of Yuchengco family and Malayan Insurance
Co., filed a criminal complaint before the Makati
City Prosecutor for libel under Article 355 in
relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code .
The complaint alleged that petitioners, together
with several John Does, publicly and maliciously
with intention of attacking the honesty, virtue,
honor and integrity, character and reputation of
Malayan Insurance Co. Inc., and Yuchengco family
for exposing them to public hatred and contempt,
and published in the said
website http://www.pepcoalition.com a
defamatory article persuading the public to remove
their investments and policies from the said
company. This is after the petitioners filed to seek
their redress for their pecuniary loss under the
policies they obtained from the company. Makati
City Prosecutor, after finding probable cause to
indict the petitioners, filed separate information
against them .
Petitioners filed before the respondent RTC of
Makati a Motion to Quash on the grounds that it
failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the
acts complained of in the Information are not
punishable by law since internet libel is not
covered by Article 353 of the RPC. Petitioners
maintained that the Information failed to allege a
particular place within the trial courts jurisdiction
where the subject article was printed and first
published or that the offended parties resided
in Makati at the time the alleged defamatory
material was printed and first published, and the
prosecution erroneously laid the venue of the case
in the place where the offended party accessed the
internet-published article.
Issue:
Whether petitioners’ Motion to Quash due to lack
of jurisdiction is valid.
Held:
Yes. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such
that the place where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the action but
constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. The
venue of libel cases where the complainant is a
private individual is limited to only either of two
places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense;
or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was
printed and first published.
The Amended Information in the case opted to lay
the venue by stating that the offending article was
first published and accessed by the private
complainant in Makati City. In other words, it
considered the phrase to be equivalent to the
requisite allegation of printing and
first publication. This is wrong. For the court to
hold that the Amended Information sufficiently
vested jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply
because the defamatory article was accessed therein
would open the floodgates to the libel suit being
filed in all other locations where
the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or
capable of being accessed. This goes against the
purpose as to why Republic Act No. 4363 was
enacted. It lays down specific rules as to the venue
of the criminal action so as to prevent the offended
party in written defamation cases from
inconveniencing the accused by means of out-of-
town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in
remote municipal courts (
IN FINE, the public respondent committed grave
abuse of discretion in denying petitioners motion
to quash the Amended Information.
(16) Union Bank of the Philippines v. People
G.R. 192565
Facts:
Tomas was charged for perjury under
Article 183 of the RPC for making a false narration
in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. The
accused made untruthful statements under oath
upon a material matter before a competent person
authorized to administer oath which the law
requires. Accused stated in an affidavit that the
Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced
any other action or proceeding, knowing well that
said material statement was false thereby making a
wilful and deliberate assertion of falsehood.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash citing two
grounds. First, that the venue was improperly laid
since it is the Pasay City court (where the
Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted
and used) and not the MeTC of Makati City (where
the Certificate against Forum Shopping was
subscribed) that has jurisdiction over the perjury
case. Second, that the facts do not constitute the
offense.
The elements of perjury under Article 183
are:
(a) That the accused made a statement
under oath or executed an affidavit upon a
material matter.
(b) That the statement or affidavit was
made before a competent officer, authorized to
receive and administer oath.
 (c) That in the statement or affidavit, the
accused made a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood.
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit
containing the falsity is required by law or
made for a legal purpose.
MeTC – Makati City denied the Motion to
Quash ruling that it has jurisdiction since the
Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized
in Makati City and that the allegations in the
information sufficiently charged Tomas with
perjury.
Issue:
Whether or not the proper venue of perjury should
be Makati City, where the Certificate against
Forum Shopping was notarized.
Ruling:
Yes, MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and
the proper court to take cognizance of the perjury
case against the petitioners.
Where the jurisdiction of the court is being
assailed in a criminal case on the ground of
improper venue, the allegations in the complaint
and information must be examined together with
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure. On this basis, we find that
the allegations in the Information sufficiently
support a finding that the crime of perjury was
committed by Tomas within the territorial
jurisdiction of the MeTC-Makati City.
All of the elements of perjury was alleged in the
information to have been committed and made in
Makati City. Tomas’ deliberate and intentional
assertion of falsehood was allegedly shown when
she made the false declarations in the Certificate
against Forum Shopping before a notary public in
Makati City. Under the circumstances, Article 183
of the RPC is indeed the applicable provision; thus,
jurisdiction and venue should be determined on the
basis of this article which penalizes one who
"make[s] an affidavit, upon any material matter
before a competent person authorized to administer
an oath in cases in which the law so requires." The
constitutive act of the offense is the making of an
affidavit; thus, the criminal act is consummated
when the statement containing a falsity is
subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized
person.
Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and
MeTC-Makati City is the proper court to try the
perjury case against Tomas, pursuant to Section
15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure as all the essential elements
constituting the crime of perjury were committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati City,
not Pasay City. It is immaterial where the affidavit
was subscribed and sworn.
(17) De Lima vs. Guerrero
GR No. 229781, Oct. 10, 2017
Facts:
The Senate and the House of Representatives
conducted several inquiries on the proliferation of
dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid
Prison (NBP) leading to the filing of the four
complaints (consolidated) against De Lima, et. al
with the Department of Justice. The DOJ Panel
conducted a preliminary hearing but De Lima filed
an Omnibus Motion to Immediately Endorse the
Cases to the Office of the Ombudsman and for the
Inhibition of the DOJ Panel and the Secretary of
Justice. Sen. De Lima argued that the Office of the
Ombudsman ("Ombudsman") has exclusive
authority and jurisdiction to hear the four
complaints. The case should also be referred to the
Ombudsman because of evident partiality on the
part of the DOJ Panel and the Secretary of Justice.
When denied, De Lima filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the
jurisdiction of the DOJ Panel over the complaints
against her. But the DOJ Panel proceeded with the
conduct of the preliminary investigation because of
the absence of a restraining order issued by the
Court of Appeals. In its Joint Resolution dated
February 14, 2017, the DOJ Panel recommended
the filing of informations against Sen. De Lima.
Accordingly, three informations were filed against
Sen. De Lima and several co-accused before the
RTC of Muntinlupa City.Sen. De Lima filed a
Motion to Quash based on several grounds
including RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the case.
On February 23, 2017, Judge Guerrero issued an
Order finding probable cause for the issuance of
warrants of arrest against Sen. De Lima and her
co-accused. On the next day, the PNP and CIDG
served the warrant of arrest on Sen. De
Lima.Three days after,Sen. De Lima filed a petition
for certiorari with the Supreme Court and not on
Court of Appeals.
Issue: court with the authority to hear drug-related
cases:Sections 20, 61, 62, 90.
Whether the Regional Trial Court or the
Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the
violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive court with the jurisdiction to "exclusively try and
Dangerous Drug Act of 2002) averred in the hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165)." This
assailed Information. is an exception, couched in the special law on
dangerous drugs, to the general rule under Section
Ruling: 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660. It is a
canon of statutory construction that a special law
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS
prevails over a general law and the latter is to be
JURISDICTION: Read as a whole, and not picked
considered as an exception to the general.
apart with each word or phrase construed
separately, the Information against De Lima goes
beyond an indictment for Direct Bribery under
Article 210 of the RPC.80 The averments on
solicitation of money in the Information, which
may be taken as constitutive of bribery, form "part
of the description on how illegal drug trading took
place at the NBP." The averments on how
petitioner asked for and received money from the
NBP inmates simply complete the links of
conspiracy between her, Ragos, Dayan and the
NBP inmates in willfully and unlawfully trading
dangerous drugs through the use of mobile phones
and other electronic devices under Section 5, in
relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section
28, of RA 9165.

As this Court elucidated, it is not indispensable for

a co-conspirator to take a direct part in every act of
the crime. A conspirator need not even know of all
the parts which the others have to perform,81 as
conspiracy is the common design to commit a
felony; it is not participation in all the details of the
execution of the crime. 82 As long as the accused, in
one way or another, helped and cooperated in the
consummation of a felony, she is liable as a co-
principal.83 As the Information provides, De Lima's
participation and cooperation was instrumental in
the trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP
inmates.

The pertinent special law governing drug-related

cases is RA 9165, which updated the rules provided
in RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972. A plain reading of RA 9165, as
of RA 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-
related cases is exclusively vested with the
Regional Trial Court and no other. The
designation of the RTC as the court with the
exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases is
apparent in the following provisions where it was
expressly mentioned and recognized as the only