• It is a method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of an accused
in any criminal offense, and for his punishment in case of conviction.
Definition of Criminal Procedure
Queto v. Catolico
Adversarial Nature
Distinction from Criminal Law
Construction of Rules of
Criminal Procedure
Retroactive Application If
Favorable To The Accused
Jurisdiction
Evangelista v. People
Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter
• It is a generic term to describe the network of laws and rules which governs the
procedural administration of justice. It treats of rules and processes by which the
criminal laws are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who violate
such laws.
• The instant petition for prohibition was filed in behalf of 37 naturalized citizens. The
Judge summoned petitioners to discuss the nullity of their naturalization because of
some infirmity in their oath taking.
• As a general rule, a court proceeding in our judicial set-up is accusatorial or adversary
and not inquisitorial in nature.
• It contemplates two contending parties before the court, which hears them
impartially and renders judgment only after trial.
• A judge is not permitted to act as an inquisitor who pursues his own investigation
and arrives at his own conclusion ex parte. The system has a two-sided structure
consisting of the prosecution and the defense where each side tried to convince the
court that its position is the correction version of the truth.
• CRIMINAL LAW is substantive law. It defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishments.
• CRIMINAL PROCEDURE is remedial law. It provides the method by which a person
accused of a crime is arrested, tried and punished.
• Shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective securing a just,
speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding to protect
substantial rights of the accused.
• Formal defects and technicalities which do not affect the substantial rights of the
parties should be cured during trial.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the Rules of Court should not be interpreted to
sacrifice the substantial rights of the litigant at the altar of technicalities to the
consequent principles of sacred principles of justice. (Alonso vs Villamor)
• Penal laws which are favorable to the accused shall be applied retroactively.
• Generally, the application of laws is prospective, meaning they will only
take effect after they are enacted.
JURISDICTION
• It is the authority to hear and determine a cause of action. (Herrera vs Barreto)
• It is the right that put the wheel of justice in motion and to proceed to the final
determination of the cause upon the pleadings and evidence.
• It is vested in the court not in the judges.
• It is conferred only by the Constitution or laws and cannot be fixed by the will of the
parties.
• Refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case.
It is jurisdiction over the offense charged.
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law.
• It can be challenge at any stage of the proceedings and for lack of it, the court can
dismiss a case ex mero muto.
• Evangelista was charged with violation of illegal possession of firearms by having in
his possession custody and control a pistol and a gun.
• He claims that his alleged possession of the subject firearms transpired while he was
at the Dubai Airport and his possession thereof has ceased when he left for the
Philippines. He insists that since Dubai is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines and his situation is not one of the exceptions provided in Article 2 of the
Revised Penal Code, our criminal laws are not applicable. In short, he had not
committed a crime within the Philippines.
• The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the
action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. The offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. If evidence shows it was committed somewhere
else, the court should dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.
 • In this case, the information specifically and categorically alleged that on or about
January 30, 1996 Evangelista was in possession, custody and control of the subject
firearms at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Pasay City, Philippines, certainly
a territory within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
• Refers to the territorial jurisdiction of the court in relation to the place where the
offense was committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken
place.
• It is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the
offense allegedly committed by the accused.
• Criminal cases are jurisdictional.
Jurisdiction over Territory
• Hence, criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
province wherein the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients
took place (Sec. 15, Rule 110)
• A court cannot try an offense outside its territorial limits where it operates.
• One cannot be held to answer for any crime EXCEPT in the jurisdiction where it was
committed.
ART. 2, RPC: Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential applicationπ, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise
of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

SECTION 15, RULE 110 of Rules of Court: Place where action is to be instituted. —
Jurisdictional Character of
Venue in Criminal Cases
1. Subject 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.
2. Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or private vehicle
while in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or other vehicle passed
during such its trip, including the place of its departure and arrival.
3. Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the
criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first port of entry or of
any municipality or territory where the vessel passed during such voyage, subject to
the generally accepted principles of international law.
4. Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the
Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first
filed.

• VENUE— is procedural, it deals with the locality, a particular country or geographical

area in which a court with jurisdiction may hear and determine a case.
• JURISDICTION— is substantial, it is the power of the court to decide the case on the
merits. (Crisostomo vs Echiverri)

Lopez v. City Judge

• The parties charged moved for the dismissal of the case mainly on the ground that
the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the offense because the private
document that contained the alleged false statement.
• The place where the criminal offense was committed not only determined the venue
of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.
• Where the act of falsification — the signing of the document and the coetaneous
intent to cause damage — was committed and consummated outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the City of Angeles (should be QC), the City Court of Angeles has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged.

Supreme Court’s Plenary Power
to order Change of Venue
Extra-Territorial Application
Statutory Designation of
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Over Person
Navaja v. De Castro
• For falsifying a receipt to reimburse meal expenses from DKT Philippines, Navaja was
charged with the crime of falsification of private document in the MCTC -Jagna,
Bohol. She filed a motion to quash and defer arraignment on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. She argues that none of the essential elements of the crime was shown
to have been committed in Jagna, Bohol.
• It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases,
the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
• Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. In criminal cases, for
courts to acquire jurisdiction, the offense should have been committed or any of its
essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Art 8 Sec 5 Constitution
• Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (4) Order a change
of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
See Anti-Terror Act of 2020 Sec. 49
Sandiganbayan:
o R.A. 3019: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices,
o R.A. 1379: Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully
Acquired by Any public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor.
o R.A. 9160, as amended R.A. 9194: Anti-Money Laundering
Family Courts:
o R.A. 8639: Family Courts Act
o P.D. 603: The Child and Youth Welfare Code
Illegal Recruitment:
o R.A. 100022: The New Overseas Employment Law (RTC of the province or city where the
offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.
Trafficking in Persons:
o R.A. 9208: Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (filed where the offense was committed,
or where any of its elements occurred, or where the trafficked person actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense)
Dangerous Drugs: RA 9165 Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002: RTC
• In criminal proceedings, it is not sufficient for the court to acquire jurisdiction over
the subject matter. It also needs to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
• Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his apprehension,
with or without warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
• After the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused
is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the
court or was duly arrested, the court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the accused.
• The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction
over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing
a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court's jurisdiction
thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail.
Santiago v. Vasquez
• Santiago was charged under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She went to
the Ombudsman to file bail.
• Santiago contends that the court never acquired jurisdiction over her person
considering that she has neither been arrested nor has she voluntarily surrendered,
aside from the fact that she has not validly posted bail since she never personally
appeared before said court.
 • Petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of
respondent court upon the filing of her "Urgent Ex- parte Motion for Acceptance of
Cash Bail Bond for and in behalf of Dr. Miriam Defensor Santiago". A court has power
to prohibit the person admitted to bail from leaving.

Miranda v. Tuliao
• Miranda and others filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation to
reinvestigate and quash the warrant of arrest on the murder cases filed against them.
However, it was denied by Judge Tumaliuan on the ground that the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over their persons since they were absent,
• Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither jurisdiction
over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.
• Jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
• EXCEPTION:
o It may not be raised for the first time on appeal, where there has been
estoppel and laches on the party who raises the question.
o THUS, when an adverse party failed at several stages proceedings to raise
the lack of jurisdiction and judgment had been rendered, he cannot later
on claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because he is estopped.

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
• Spouses Tijam filed a case against Spouses Sibonghanoy to recover the sum of
P1,908 with legal interest and cost. A writ of execution was issued against
Sibonghanoy.
• Tijam moved for the issuance of the writ of execution against surety’s bond. The
surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued without
summary hearing. After 15 years, the surety filed a motion to dismiss the case stating
that CFI has no jurisdiction.
• A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against
his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction.
• The question whether the court had jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the
action or of the parties, was not important in such cases because the party is barred
from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and
conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice cannot be
tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy.

Notion of Estoppel
US v. Dela Santa
• De La Santa (defendant) is being charged with seduction under the RPC. His victim
was Teofila Sevilla and the seduction happened when she was just 21 years old. Her
father instituted criminal proceedings when she turned 25.
• The criminal proceedings were commenced when she was no longer a minor. Hence,
the offended party has the exclusive authority to institute the proceedings.
Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this case.
• Jurisdiction over the subject-matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court; it is given only by law and in the
manner prescribed by law and an objection based on the lack of such jurisdiction
cannot be waived by the parties.
• Hence, the accused in a criminal case cannot, by express waiver or otherwise, confer
jurisdiction on a court over an offense as to which such jurisdiction has not been
conferred upon such court by law.

Lozon v. NLRC
• Ramon C. Lozon was a Senior VP Finance of PAL, when his services were terminated
in the aftermath of the publicized 2 Billion Peso PAL scam. Aggrieved, Lozon, filed
with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal.
• PAL claims the OP not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case. SC ruled that the SEC
has jurisdiction over intra-corporate matters.
• It has long been the established rule that jurisdiction over a subject matter is
conferred by law, and the question of lack of jurisdiction maybe raised at anytime
even on appeal.

Norms of Criminal
Jurisdiction/Adherence Principle
Jurisdiction of the Courts
MTC, RTC, Sandiganbayan,
Court Martial
Complex Crimes
• PAL is not estopped. If the lower court had no jurisdiction but the case was tried and
decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal
from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must exist as a matter of law, and may
not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel.
Dela Cruz v. Moya
• Dela Cruz was charged for crime of homicide in Court of First Instance Davao in an
information filed by the Provincial Fiscal for allegedly killing Eusebio Cabilto during
an operation to verify and apprehend operators of illegal cockfights. He assailed the
jurisdiction of the civil courts.
• SC ruled that military tribunals created under General Order No. 8 exercised
exclusive jurisdiction over his case.
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time
of the commencement of the action and once jurisdiction is vested in the Court, it is
retained up to the end of litigation
People v. Chupeco
• Chupeco is charged with repledging propertied. He insists that the CFI of Manila had
no CFI of Manila had jurisdiction over the case.
• One of the essential ingredients of the offense took place in Manila because the first
mortgage was executed in the city. Once acquired, jurisdiction over the is not tolled
by subsequent amendment of the information or by stipulation between the parties.
Sanchez v. Sandiganbayan
• Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction of Philippine Army officials ranking below
the Full Colonel rank.
• Due to the enactment of RA 7976 enacted on March 30,1995, jurisdiction over the
case was no longer with the Sandiganbayan despite the fact that at the time the
crime was charged they had jurisdiction over said subject matter and the fact that
trial had yet to begin.
AM No. 00-11-01-SC (Bouncing Checks Law – for MTC):
• MTC has jurisdiction on cases involving violations of BP 22 and all other criminal
cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment
not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one P1,000.00, or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil
liability arising therefrom.
People v. Eduarte
• The crime of concubinage falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the lower
courts (MTC). In ruling so, the Court held that it would be absurd that the MTC has
jurisdiction over the husband while the RTC has jurisdiction over the concubine.
• Under Art. 344 of the RPC, offended party in concubinage cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including both the guilty parties.
People v. Morales
• The Court Of Appeals has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court
pursuant to section 5(1) of article VIII of the Constitution and Section 17(1) Of The
Judiciary Act Of 1948, and with the regional trial court pursuant to section 21(1) of
B.P. BLG. 129 to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus and
quo warranto.
• SC ruled that the appellate court erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction over
petitioner's special civil action for certiorari due to its misapplication of Section 5
(2)(c) of Article VIII of the Constitution and of that portion of Section 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948 vesting the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction to review,
revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on certiorari as the law or rules of court may provide.
• The appellate court forgot that above-mentioned constitutional and statutory
provisions pertain to appellate and not original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Cuyos v. Garcia
• Petitioner is charged with homicide with multiple serious physical injuries and
damage to property, through reckless imprudence. Petitioner assailed the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Court that it only had jurisdiction over offenses
punishable by a fine not exceeding P6,000.00,
 • Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, in a prosecution for a complex crime
constituted by two (2) or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most
serious crime is to be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
• The imposable penalty for the physical injuries charged would come within the
jurisdiction of the municipal or justice of the peace court, while the fine, for the
damage to property, would fall on the Court of First Instance.
• As the information cannot be split into two, one for damages and another for the
physical injuries, the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the case must be
determined not by the corresponding penalty for the physical injuries charged but
by the fine imposable for the damage to property resulting from the reckless
imprudence.
US v. Cunanan
• The theory upon which a person accused of a transitory offense may be tried in any
jurisdiction within which he is found is based upon the ground that there is a new
commission of the same offense" in the jurisdiction wherein he is found. In such a
case, the complaint should allege that the offense was committed within the
jurisdiction of the court and not at the place where it was originally committed.
• The complaint in this case alleges that the offense was committed in the Province of
Cebu, but there is no allegation that it was committed within the jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance of Manila. When a complaint shows that the offense charged
was not committed within the jurisdiction of the court, it is demurrable.

People v. Grospe
• San Miguel filed two cases against Parulan, who is charged with BP 22 and estafa.
Continuing Crimes Parulan claims the RTC of Pampangas has no jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC of Pampanga has jurisdiction. For estafa, it
characterized it as a continuing offense, its basic elements of deceit and damage
may arise in separate places. Deceit occurred in Pampanga, where the check was
legally issued.
• A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or
province where the offense was in part committed. In transitory or continuing
offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its
consummation occur in one province and some in another, the Court of either
province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first Court taking
cognizance of the Case will exclude the others.
• However, if all the acts material and essential to the crime and requisite of its
consummation occurred in one municipality or territory, the Court of the municipality
or territory has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.
Tuzon v. Cruz
• The contention here was due to the fact that in the complaint filed by the LYRIC
PIANO CENTER, it was alleged that while the DECEIT was perpetrated in Quezon
City, the DAMAGE was actually consummated in MANDALUYONG.
• TRANSITORY OFFENSE – Cases can be filed in any court where offense or any of
the ingredient thereof took place. Section 14, Rule 110 of the RoC provides that in
all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court or of the
municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the
Transitory Crimes
essential ingredients thereof took place. In this case, the deceitful manipulations of
false pretenses employed by the accused have been perpetrated in QC; this fact
does not preclude the initiation of the action in Mandaluyong City because the
damage was consummated there. Deceit and damage are basic elements of Estafa.
• TRANSITORY OFFENSE; Venue – Where one essential element of the crime took
place in one province and another element took place in another, the courts of either
province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking
cognizance of the case will exclude the other.
CRIMINAL CASES
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
MTC , MeTC, MCTC (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of
Jurisdiction not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not more than four thousand
pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, 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 amount thereof: Provided, however,
 That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not exceed twenty
thousand pesos.

CIVIL CASES
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the
demand does not exceed twenty thousand pesos exclusive of interest and costs but
inclusive of damages of whatever kind, the amount of which must be specifically
alleged: Provided, That where there are several claims or causes of action between
the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership
in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding
the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession.
CIVIL CASES
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands
or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or claim
exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
RTC Jurisdiction
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian
Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest and costs or the value
of the property in controversy, amounts to more than twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00).

OTHERS
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions;
and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional
Trial Courts; and
CA Jurisdiction (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the provisions
of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of
the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
SC Jurisdiction 1987 Constitution Art VII, Sec. 5
• Jurisdiction is with the RTC by public officers in relation to their offices. (Omnibus
Election Offenses
Election Code)
• Jurisdiction over tax collection cases and violations of the National Internal Revenue
CTA Jurisdiction Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs
 • Appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
tax cases decided by the RTC.
• Violations of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
• In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories
with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-
owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers
and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
them.

Inding v. Sandigabayan
• Inding, in the performance of his official functions, faked buy- bust operations against
alleged pushers. He claims that the SB has no jurisdiction since he is SG 25.
• For purposes of determining the government officials that fall within the original
jurisdiction of the SB in cases involving violations of RA No. 3019, RA 7975 has
grouped them into 5 categories:
o Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher
o Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade27 and up
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
o Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution
o Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice
to the provisions of the Constitution
o All other national and local officials classified as SG27 and higher
• Violation of RA 3019 committed by officials in the executive branch with SG 27 or
higher, and the officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Sec. 4 a. (1) of PD 1606
as amended by Sec. 2 of RA 7975 REGARDLESS OF THEIR SALARY GRADES,
LIKEWISE FALL WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SB. SB, therefore,
Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case.

Duncano v. Sandiganbayan
• Danilo Duncano is the Regional Director of BIR with Salary Grade 26. A criminal case
was filed against him for failing to disclose in his Sworn Statement of Assets and
Liabilities and Networth (SALN). He is has a SG of 26.
• Those that fall within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are: (1) officials
of the executive branch with Salary Grade 27 or higher, and (2) officials whose
positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision
of law placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
• Sandiganbayan does not have the jurisdiction to try this instant case. Although
petitioner is a Regional Director of the BIR, his position is classified as Director II with
Salary Grade 26. Petitioner, Duncano is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27
or higher.

Disini v. Sandiganbayan
• The Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations charging Disini of the crime of
corruption of public officials and violation of Sec. 4(a) of RA 3019. Disini filed a
Motion to Quash and a Motion for Reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan denied
the said motions, respectively.
• The informations alleged that due to Disini’s close relationship with then President
Marcos as well as the considerations offered to then President Marcs, the former was
able to secure subcontracts,
• The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the criminal action
involving petitioner notwithstanding that he is a private individual considering that
his criminal prosecution is intimately related to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of
the Marcoses, their immediate family, subordinates and close associates.