1.

Define Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is a generic term to describe the
network of laws and rules which governs the procedural administration of justice.

This means that Criminal procedure is concerned with the rules and processes through which
criminal laws are enforced, and by which the State prosecutes persons who violate such laws.

In the case of People v. Lacson1 the Court said that procedural law when applied to criminal law,
“provides or regulates the steps by which one who has committed a crime is to be punished.”

Thus, there is a clear distinction which differentiates criminal law from criminal procedure.
Criminal law determines prohibited conduct which citizens ought not to do and calls the same as
crimes, and it also prescribes the punishment for said crimes. Criminal procedure, on the other
hand, lays down the process by which an offender is made to answer for the commission of crimes. 2

2. Enumerate Sources of Criminal Procedure

The sources of Criminal Procedure are:

a.Rules 110-127 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by AM No. 00-5-03-SC;

b.Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC);
c.The 1987 Constitution
d.Various acts passed by the legislature such as, but not limited to B.P. 129, as amended by
R.A. No. 7691
e. The Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically Articles 32, 33 and 34;
f. Presidential Decrees;
g. Executive Orders; and
h. Decisions of the Supreme Court.
3. What is Jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear and determine questions of fact and law.
It includes the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and pronounce judgment. In sum, it is
the authority to hear and try a particular case, and impose the punishment for it.

4. What are the requisites for exercise of criminal jurisdiction?

According to the case of Cruz v. CA3 the following requisites must concur in order for there to be a valid
exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction:

a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;

b. Jurisdiction over the territory where the crime was committed; and
c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
5. Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter, territory, and over the person of the accused

Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a
particular case. It is synonymous with jurisdiction over the offense charged. It requires the court where
1
People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, [April 1, 2003], 448 PHIL 317-463.
2
WILLARD B. RIANO, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (THE BAR LECTURES SERIES) 21-22 (2016). [hereinafter RIANO]
3
Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, [August 29, 2002], 436 PHIL 641-655.
the action filed to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offense, as determined by law. This
kind of jurisdiction may not be fixed by the will of the parties, nor can it be acquired or diminished by
any act of the parties to the litigation.

Jurisdiction over the territory refers to the jurisdiction of the court over the place or venue of the
commission of the crime or where any one of the essential ingredients of the crime should have taken
place. Like jurisdiction over the subject matter, this kind of jurisdiction may not be fixed by the will of
the parties, nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of the parties to the litigation.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused refers to the authority of the court, over the person
charged. It requires that the accused must have been validly arrested with or without warrant, or has
voluntarily appeared or submitted to the jurisdiction of the court himself. This type of jurisdiction can be
waived by the failure to question the jurisdiction over the person of the accused through the filing of a
motion to quash before arraignment and plea under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.4

6. Can injunction be used to restrain criminal prosecution?

Yes, injunction can be used to restrain criminal prosecution. While the law states that courts will
not generally issue writs of injunction to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution, the Court in the
case of Brocka v. Enrile5 has laid down numerous exceptions to this rule which apply in extreme
cases to wit:

a. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
b. When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice, or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
c. When there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice;
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
f. Where there is double jeopardy;
g. Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied.
7. Can Mandamus be used to compel prosecution? Explain.

Generally, mandamus cannot be used to compel criminal prosecution. It is not a remedy to be used to
control government officers to exercise their discretionary powers in a certain way. Thus, at the point of
preliminary investigation, where the prosecutor is still at the point of determining probable cause, the
writ shall not issue. But where probable cause has been found, after an examination of the evidence
presented to the prosecutor, and there is delay, the writ shall issue, since it is the ministerial duty of the
prosecutor to initiate the filing of a criminal case where he has found probable cause. 6

4
RIANO supra at 4.
5
Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. Nos. 69863-65, [December 10, 1990], 270 PHIL 271-279.
6
Metropolitan bank and trust company v reynado
8. List down the jurisdiction of the MTC in Criminal cases.

The jurisdiction of the MTC is as follows:

a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 32[1], B.P. 129 as amended by R.A. 7691);
b. All offenses punishable by penalties not higher than prision correccional (maximum of 6
years), except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
Sandiganbayan;
c. Offenses involving damages to property through criminal negligence (Sec 32[2], B.P. 129, as
amended by R.A. 7691).
d. Violations of B.P. 22
e. Summary procedures in certain cases
f. Special Jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail in criminal cases in the absence of all
RTC judges in a provinces or city (Sec. 35, B.P. 129 as amended by R.A. 7691)
9. List down the jurisdiction of the RTC in Criminal cases.
The jurisdiction of the RTC is as follows:
a. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 20, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691).
b. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction enforceable in any part of their respective regions
(Sec. 21[1], B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691).
c. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction (Sec.
22, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691).
d. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to handle exclusively criminal cases as may be
determined by the SC (Sec. 23, B.P. 129 as amended by R.A. 7691).
e. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws such as, but not limited to:
i. Written defamation
ii. Violations of R.A. 9165
iii. Violations of intellectual property rights laws
iv. Money laundering not committed by public officers and private persons who are not
in conspiracy with such public officers.
10. List down the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in criminal cases.

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is as follows:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corruption
Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
 (a) Provincial governors, vice- governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod city treasurer,
assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial
director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled

corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade "27" and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ‘‘27’’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection ‘‘a’’ of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases files pursuant to and in connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A, issued in
1986.

11. List down the jurisdiction of the Family Courts in criminal cases.

The Family Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide 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
where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That
if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the
respondent may have incurred (Sec. 5, R.A. 8369).

12. List down the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax appeals in criminal cases.

The jurisdiction of the CTA is as follows:

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National
Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or
felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
 exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or
where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the
jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the
contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the
recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted
with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal
action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to
reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized.

2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:

a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax
cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.

b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial
Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their
respective jurisdiction.

c. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory
assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases where
the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court and Regional Trial Court.

2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:

a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in
tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial
Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided
by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in
their respective jurisdiction.

13. Criminal cases under Rules of summary procedure.

1. Violation of traffic laws, rules, and regulations;

2. Violations of the rental law;

3. B.P. 22 cases;

4. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;

5. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos
(PI,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the
civil liability arising therefrom; and

6. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable fine
does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)(Sec. 1[B], The 1991 Rule on Summary
Procedure).