‣ EXCEPT —

1. When the statute expressly so provides

2. When the statute is construed to the effect that it is intended to operation upon actions pending before its enactment
‣ Therefore, once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case such as its dismissal or continuance rests
upon the sound discretion of the court
‣ Even if the prosecution files a motion to withdraw the information, the court may grant or deny the same in the faithful exercise of
judicial prerogative.

OBJECTIONS TO ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT-MATTER

‣ RULE — Absence of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the criminal action may either be raised by the —
1. Court — which may motu proprio dismiss the case at any stage of the proceedings, or on appeal
2. Defendant — at any stage of the proceedings, or on appeal by filing a motion to quash
‣ EXCEPT — Even if the courts cannot confer this and only the law confers it and thus can be questioned at any stage
by the defendant, ESTOPPEL on the ground of public policy may bar him from doing so.
‣ This is after the defendant voluntarily submits a cause for decision on the merits and encounters an adverse one, it is then too
late for him to question the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter.
‣ Public policy bars the defendant from speculating on the fortunes of litigation.
‣ The rule is the same in civil case, in Tijam vs Sibonghanoy, the court ruled that a party may be estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction of the court for reasons of public policy as when he initially invokes the jurisdiction of the court and then later on
repudiates that same jurisdiction
‣ BUT — this is merely an exception and applies only to exceptional cases, and it is submitted that the court should still heavily
consider the lack of jurisdiction and should not lightly brush it aside when the liberty of an individual is at stake.
‣ SEE — Foz Jr. vs People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009
‣ Raising the issue of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. The rule is settled that an objection based on the ground that the
court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or on appeal.
‣ Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or
otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only by law in
the manner and form prescribed by law.
‣ While an exception to this rule was recognized by this Court beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy,
wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction by the court which rendered the questioned ruling was considered to be arred by
laches, we find that the factual circumstances involved in said case, a civil case, which justified the departure from the general
rule are not present in the instant criminal case