1. May territorial jurisdiction be conferred by law? Explain with legal basis.

es, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law. The Supreme court may designate to any court its
territorial jurisdiction aside from its geographical area. Likewise, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
may be transferred to another territorial jurisdiction involving crimes committed by officers from
Ombudsman and from executive offices within its geographical area.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law.

According to jurisprudence, territorial jurisdiction is defined as the geographical boundaries to which a

court may exercise its jurisdiction. Outside of which, acts of the court shall be null and void. However,
there are cases which the law confer territorial jurisdiction especially in cases of continuing crimes such
as in the case of BP 22.

Crime committed under BP 22,territorial jurisdiction of which is conferred to courts where one of the
essential ingredients of the crime is committed.

Territorial Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the information or the complaint. Territorial
jurisdiction is also determined by the place of the commission of the crime or any of it's essential
ingredients took place.

Yes, territorial Jurisdiction may be conferred by law.

Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the territorial jurisdiction of crimes which are cognizable
within the Philippines.

Thus, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law.

Yes Territorial Jurisdiction is conferred by law. It is determined by the geographical area over which it
presides. In criminal cases, Territorial jurisdiction is the territory where the Court take cognizance or
tried an offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, the Court cannot take jurisdiction
over the person charged for an offense allegedly committed outside its limited territory.

As a general rule, territorial jurisdiction is conferred based on the allegations filed in the complaint or
information in which it is based on the place where the crime is committed or where any of the essential
requisites of the crime has taken place. However, there may be cases which the said jurisdiction may be
conferred by law. One of the examples are those crimes committed while in the high seas pursuant to
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code. In this case, the said law provides that the court where the case is
filed first will take cognizance over the said crime. In the crime of libel as mandated by the Revised Penal
Code, the court where the article is first printed or published, where the the private party is situated or
where the place of office if the party is a public officer, will take cognizance of the case.
Yes. Territorial jurisdiction is conferred by law. It cannot be the subject of agreement between the
parties. Territorial jurisdiction is the geographical location of which the offense has been committed or
where the essential elements of such offense took place. Hence, under the Rules of Court and other
special laws, the jurisdiction of each court has been placed respectively.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction maybe conferred by law. This is in cases where the institution of the trial in a
certain place could bring grave injustice and where the life of a witness or plaintiff maybe in jeopardy.
Also cases falling under Article 2 of the criminal law are exceptions to the territorial jurisdiction. Some
examples of these crimes are those which are committed in a Philippine ship or airship, crimes
committed by officers and diplomats in relation to their office in a foreign country and crimes against
national security. Even if these crimes are not committed in the country's jurisdiction, it can still be tried
under Philippine court.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law when territoriality is an essential element of the
crime.

Yes. The territorial jurisdiction be conferred by the law as provided in RA 8249 where the determination
of jurisdiction of sandiganbayan over public officers is based on their public position and their
corresponding salary provided by the law.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law. B.P. 129 provides for such jurisdiction as the said
law laid down the geographical limits of the MTC, MeTC, MCTC and the RTC.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law such as those provided under Batas Pambansa (BP)
129, which outlined the judicial regions, as well as the number of respective courts present within the
specified regions. Also, chartered cities, or cities created by law, may carry with them territorial
jurisdiction as provided in their respective charters.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction can be conferred by law. The recent law on territorial jurisdiction is conferred
to by provisions in BP 129.

No. Territorial jurisdiction may not be conferred by law.

Territorial jurisdiction is the limit of geographical boundaries, within which the court has jurisdiction to
try cases under his jurisdiction, and outside of which, said acts are considered null and void.

As provided in the Rules of Court, it is determined where the crime was committed or where its essential
ingredients took place. This is not coffered by law but by the place.

No. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the physical boundaries of a territory where the court can
exercise jurisdiction over a case, and outside of which, its decisions and judgments are void. In criminal
cases, the court of the place where the offense, or any of its elements, was committed has jurisdiction
over such case.

No. Territorial jurisdiction cannot be conferred by law. Territorial Jurisdiction is the limit in the
geographical boundaries of a place within which a court acquires jurisdiction to act judicially. The
principle here is that in criminal cases, venue is the jurisdiction and a court is bereft to try an offense
committed outside of its territory. Moreover, it is the Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter which is
conferred by the law as it is governed by sovereign authority.

Yes. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the geographical area within which the court presides and
the fact that the offense was committed or any of its essential elements took place within said area. It is
a well-settled rule that, it is the law which determines the court's territorial jurisdiction.

Yes. Territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law. According to the article on territoriality of the 1987
Constitution, crimes committed on board vessels in transit regardless of where or what point in its
voyage the crime was committed shall be tried in the nearest port the vessel docks at. According to the
Rules on Criminal Procedure, If a crime was committed minutes after the ship sailed from Cebu on its
way to Manila, even though the crime technically happened in Cebu, it is the next port or Manila court
closes to the port of destination that has jurisdiction over the case.

Yes. Territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law. Territorial jurisdiction is determined based on the
allegations in the complaint and the place where the crime is committed or any of its essential
ingredients took place.

BP 129 is the law that clearly provides the jurisdiction of the courts in criminal cases.

Yes, territorial Jurisdiction may be conferred by law. According to BP 129, there are only 13 Regional
Trial Courts in the Philippines. The law also enumerates the list of the Regional Trial Courts and other
lower courts in the country, and the places that fall under their jurisdiction. Not only that, in a case such
as BP 22 , the court of the place where the check was drawn will have territorial jurisdiction over it.
Another example is when a crime happened in a vessel, the port of first entry can have jurisdiction over
the case.

Jurisdiction is conferred by law. In People vs Olermo, the court reiterates that jurisdiction is always
conferred by law and territorial jurisdiction is conferred by the law in forced at the time of the
institution of the complaint or information determined by the geographical area over which the court
presides, to take cognizance of the cases involving crimes committed, or any of its elements, within its
geographical area.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction can be conferred by law. A court can only hear crimes whose elements occur
within its territorial jurisdiction, it cannot hear crimes which are not within its scope. For example, the
MTC of Davao can generally only hear crimes that fall within its jurisdiction. It means that the MTC can
only take cognizance of crimes whos elements occurred in Davao City.

Yes, the territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law.

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases confers upon the
authority of the court where the offense is committed and where any of the essential ingredients of the
said offense should take place.
Only in special circumstances. For offenses covered by Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) or the
Bouncing Check Law, it specified that all cases, regardless of the amount of the check, shall be filed
before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC). Hence, the territorial jurisdiction of such offense was
conferred by BP22 to the MTCs.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law. BP 129 and the Sandiganbayan Law find application.
In the former the jurisdiction of the courts were delineated and their respective limited geographical
boundaries were identified, such that crimes committed or whose essential ingredients occurred within
the territorial limits of the 11th Judicial Region cannot be validly taken cognizance by the courts of the
10th Judicial Region. The same applies to the braches under each judicial region.

Territorial Jurisdiction may be conferred by law, under the amended RA8247, sec. 7 it can be conferred
to proper court upon the effective of the said bill, when the trial has not yet begun, or if there is a
special law of the said crime committed, the special law will be followed.

Yes. Territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law. As a rule, territorial jurisdiction is determined by
the geographical limits or boundaries wherein which a court operates. The scope of the jurisdiction is
provided for under Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 129, as amended, where the each court's territorial bounds
and limits are determined.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law. Under the law, territorial jurisdiction is determined
by the geographical area in which the court presides. It is also determined by the allegation of facts in
the complaint or information which means that the court of the place where the crime or any of its
elements was committed shall have jurisdiction over the case.

Yes, territorial jurisdiction may be conferred by law. The law sets the geographical area over which a
court has jurisdiction over. For example, BP 129, as amended, set forth the judicial regions and its
different branched.

2. Explain how the jurisdiction on the following is determined: a.) territorial jurisdiction b.)
jurisdiction over the subject matter c.) jurisdiction over the person of the accused
a. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the geographical area over which a court presides or where
any of the essential ingredients of an offense within the area took place. For instance, an RTC of Davao
City has jurisdiction over offenses committed in Davao City.

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the nature of the offense or its penalty. For
example, those crimes with penalty of 6 years and up falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC and those
penalty of 6 years and below fall with MTC.

c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined by the issuance of warrant of arrest or by
voluntary surrender/appearance and subsequent arraignment.

Jurisdiction is determined in the following instances:

a. For territorial jurisdiction, the determination of which is the place of the commission of the crime or
the offense or the necessary ingredients;

b. For jurisdiction over subject matter, it is determined based on the provision of the law;

c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined at the time of the voluntary appearance or
arrest of the accused.

(a) Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place of the commission of the crime or any of its
essential elements took place thereof. The venue of the crime is an essential element to the jurisdiction
of the court.

(b) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
It is conferred by law and not by the stipulation of the parties.

(c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined when the accused is brought to trial either
by warrant of arrest or voluntary surrender.

Jurisdiction is determined in the following instances:

1) in territorial jurisdiction, it is determined where the essential elements of the offense is committed.

2) In Jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is conferred by law.

3)In jurisdiction over the person of the accused, it is acquired upon arrest, with or without a warrant of
arrest and upon voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

a. Territorial jurisdiction is determined based on the allegation of facts in the complaint or information.
It is determined by the geographical area over which it presides. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal case is
the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try an offense allegedly committed
by the accused therein. Thus the court cannot take jurisdiction over a person for an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory.

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular
criminal case. This simply means that jurisdiction over an offense charged. It is determined based on the
allegations of facts in the complaint or information.

c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is the jurisdiction not confined with the subject matter or
offense charge but over the person of the accused. Thus the Court acquires jurisdiction over the person
charged by his arrest or apprehension with our without warrant or by his voluntary appearance of
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

a. Territorial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction acquired by the court based on the place of the commission
of the crime or where any of the essential requisites falls in the same place covered by the jurisdiction of
the court.

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined based on the allegations filed in the complaint or
information over a particular case. It is conferred by law.

c. Jurisdiction over the person accused is acquired by the court when the accused is arrested or upon its
voluntary submission or appearance.

a.) Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the geographical location. This is where the offense was
committed or the essential elements of which took place.

b.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter are those that are alleged in the complaint. A court can acquire
jurisdiction based on what has been alleged in a complaint or information.

c.) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused means the acquisition of a person to be under the custody
of law. In such case, an accused can be under the jurisdiction of the court if he has been arrested, or he
voluntarily surrendered or there are coercive processes upon which he is called upon.

a. )Territorial jurisdiction is determined by geographical location as to where the crime or the

ingredients of the crime took place; b.) jurisdiction of the subject matter is determined as to the
prevailing law or procedure at the time of the time of the institution of the action of the crime and not
when the offense was committed; c.) jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined when the
person subjects himself to the court or was arrested.

a.) Territorial jurisdiction is determined where the place of the crime or any of its essential elements
occured.

b.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information
in accordance with the law enforce at the time of the institution of the action.

c.) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined when the accused is brought in the court's
presence forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon voluntary submission to the court.

Territorial Jurisdiction is determined based on its geographical boundaries and based on the places
where acts or omissions or any of its essential ingredients took place.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined based on the corresponding penalty or fine provided
by the law for the offense that was alleged in the information.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined whether the accused is a public officer and its
corresponding salary that was provided under the law.

A. Territorial Jurisdiction is conferred by law. It is determined by the geographical boundaries of the

court to where it presides. Territorial Jurisdiction will also be acquired if the commission of the crime or
its material elements is committed in the area where the court presides.

B. Jurisdiction over the Subject matter is determined by the allegations on the complaint or the
information charging a person with an offense in relation to the law in force at the time of the institution
of the criminal action.

C. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is conferred upon the voluntary surrender of the accused
or upon his arrest for the offense charged.

The three elements of jurisdiction are determined accordingly as follows:

a) Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the geographical boundaries of the place and as provided for
by law, such as those prescribed under BP 129. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where
the crime or any of its essential elements has been committed;

b) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information
and as conferred for by law; and,

c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined upon the arrest or the voluntary submission
of the accused.

a.) Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the venue where the crime was committed or where the
elements of the crime were committed.

b.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by law.

c.) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined by gaining custody over him or her either
by arrest or by surrendering to the proper authorities.

Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the limit of the geographical limit of the place within which the
court has jurisdiction to try cases under his jurisdiction, and outside of which his acts are null and void.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The provided the courts within which a specific
is to be tried, considering the kind of offense charged, its penalty, and fine.

Jurisdiction over the the person of the accused is determined through arrest of voluntary surrender. The
court will only have jurisdiction of the person of the accused if one the said instances occured.

a) Territorial jurisdiction is determined based on the territorial boundaries of the place within which a
court has jurisdiction to hear and try a case, and issue judgment thereof. The court of the municipality or
territory where the offense, or any of its essential ingredients, was committed has the jurisdiction over
the said case.

b) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law.

c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon the latter's voluntary surrender or
appearance, or arrest.

The following jurisdiction are determined by the following:

(a) Territorial jurisdiction- This jurisdiction places the venue of the criminal cases either in court of the
municipality or territory. It answers the questions, Where was the offense committed and where any of
its essential elements occurred;

(b) Jurisdiction over the subject matter- This is considered as a common jurisdiction in both civil and
criminal cases. It is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information in accordance with
the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime. It is determined by the penalty provided by
the law; and

(c)Jurisdiction over person of the accused- it is determined if either the voluntary appearance or
surrender or arrest of the accused.

Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the geographical area over which the court presides and the fact
that the offense was committed or any of its essential elements took place within said area.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information in
accordance with the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is conferred upon the court by the voluntary appearance or
surrender of the accused, or by his arrest to answer for the crime charged.

Territorial Jurisdiction is determined by geographical location under the jurisdiction of the court as
provided by law and the location where the crime or one of its essential ingredients took place.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is strictly mandated by law and provided for in the constitution as
well as in Civil and Criminal law. While Jurisdiction over the person of the accused can be attained either
by the willful surrender of a person to the jurisdiction of the court or by their arrest.

a. Territorial jurisdiction is determined where the crime is committed or any of its essential ingredients is
committed.

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined on the penalty of the offense committed at the
time of the filing of the complaint not on the time the crime is committed.

c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired at the time he/she is arrested or he/she
voluntary surrendered.

a. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the limits of geographical boundaries over which the court has
jurisdiction. The court will have territorial jurisdiction over the case when one of the essential
ingredients of the crime was committed within the territory over which the court has jurisdiction.

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the nature of the offense charged to the
accused. It can either be civil or criminal. There are also specific crimes wherein it falls within the
jurisdiction of a certain court. For example, all BP 22 cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Trial Court.

c. The jurisdiction of the person accused is determined when the person was forcibly taken under the
court's jurisdiction through a warrant of arrest, or voluntarily when the person surrenders before the
proper authority.

a. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the geographical area over which the court presides, to take
cognizance of the cases involving crimes committed, or any of its elements, within its geographical area
in accordance to the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint or information.

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information
in accordance to the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense.

c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determine by the voluntary surrender or appearance
before the court or the arrest of the accused.

Territorial jurisdiction is provided for by law, for example BP 129 which provides the jurisdiction of
courts. The jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the body of the
complaint or information. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired via arrest or voluntary
surrender.
A.) Territorial jurisdiction is determined where the court has a jurisdiction to take cognizance and to
decide the case where an offense is committed, or any of the essential ingredients of the offense should
have take place.

B.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined when it is referred to the authority of the court to
hear and decide a particular criminal action. It is the jurisdiction over the offense charged.

C.) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined not over the subject matter of the criminal
litigation, but over the person charged.

Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the geographical area that is covered by a city, province, or
municipality. Hence, the jurisdiction of the court is limited by such boundaries.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. Hence, if the law states the such offense shall be
tried by the Regional Trial Court only, then the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined in two ways; (1) when the accused voluntarily
surrenders or appears before the court, and (2) when he is arrested.

a.) Territorial jurisdiction is determined by law, specifically the one conferred at the time of the filing of
the complaint. Said law sets the geographical boundaries of each court.

b.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is also determined by law.

c.) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined forcibly by warrant of arrest or the
accused's voluntary submission into the court or appearance.

The following jurisdiction are determined as follows:

a.) Territorial Jurisdiction, is it determined under BP129 as amended on where the offence happen or
the ingredients of the offence occurred.

b.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is determined by the law conferred.

c.) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused, it is determined by the penalty of the offence, if the
penalty is 6 years and above the RTC has Jurisdiction over his person, if the penalty is 6 years below, it is
the MTC who has jurisdiction over his person.

Jurisdiction is determined on the following:

a) Territorial jurisdiction is determined by law as provided for under Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 129, as
amended;

b) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined through the offense committed and the related
penalty of such offense, as provided for by law, and as provided for by special laws; and

c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired i) when the accused appears before the court
or the voluntary surrender of the accused; or ii) upon receipt of the warrant of arrest by the accused.

a. The territorial jurisdiction is determined by the allegation of facts in the complaint or information. The
court of the place where the crime or any of its elements was committed shall have the jurisdiction over
the case.

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the time of the filing of the criminal case and not
at the time of the commission of the crime.

c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined by voluntary surrender or appearance or by
arrest to answer the crime charged.

a.) Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the geographical area over which a court presides, and the
allegations in the complain or information that any of the essential ingredients of the crime occurred in
such place.

b.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law in force at the time the complaint or
information is filed, and the allegations in complaint or information.

c.) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined if there is a valid arrest, or if the accused
voluntarily submits himself to court.

3. The accused in a criminal case for falsification of public document filed a motion for
redetermination of probable cause before the MTC. The MTC denied the motion on the
ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the person of the accused who had not yet
been arrested. Was the remedy of the accused correct? Explain with legal basis.

hich essentially requires the finding of probable cause. The motion filed is pointless since there is no
probable cause to redetermine.
No, the remedy of the accused is not correct.

Jurisprudence states that In order for the court to have a Jurisdiction over the person accused, the
following must occur:

1.) Upon issuing a warrant of arrest and;

2.) Upon the accused to go to the court to surrender him/herself.

Here, there's no showing that the accused are already in the Jurisdiction of the court, likewise, in order
for the court to have jurisdiction or accept her motion either 2 instances must be first occurred

Therefore, the remedy of the accused is not correct.

No. The remedy applied for the accused in this case was not correct.

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the remedies of the accused are the following:

1. File a motion for reinvestigation in order for the court to remand the case to the prosecutor; or

2. File a motion to quash the information.

The purpose of determination of probable cause before the MTC is in order for the said court to issue a
warrant or arrest. Upon service of such warrant of arrest upon the person of the accused, the court will
then acquire jurisdiction over the said person.

No, the remedy of the accused was not correct. Under the law, the court's jurisdiction over the person
of the accused is determined by his voluntary appearance or surrender and arrest so that he can answer
for the crime charged.

In this case, the accused had not yet been arrested, which is why the MTC has no jurisdiction over his
person.

Yes, the motion for redetermination of probable cause of the accused is correct since he is questioning if
there really is probable cause in the crime charged over him as provided in Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court. Also, a motion for reinvestigation cannot be filed as there is no preliminary investigation involved
in this case.

4. In the preceding case, was the denial of the MTC correct? Explain with legal basis.

The denial of MTC is incorrect considering that the criminal action filed is criminal negligence
resulting in injury and damage to property, MTC has jurisdiction over the case. Hence a denial is
incorrect.
No, the denial of the MTC was incorrect. According to jurisprudence, a court may require
jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon his voluntary appearance or arrest or the
accused seek for the affirmative relief of the court. However, appearance or arrest shall only be
necessary in the instance when he files a motion for bail. In the case at bar, the MTC was
incorrect for denying the motion of the accused since it is only for reinvestigation and not an
application for bail. Filing a Motion for reinvestigation does not require the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
No. The denial of MTC is not correct. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure criminal
case of falsification of public document can be hear and tried before the municipal trial court. The
contention of the Municipal Trial Court denying the motion is not tenable. When an accused
seeks a relief in court, it automatically follows that such court acquires jurisdiction over the same.
No, the denial of the Municipal Trial court is not correct. The Supreme Court held that filing
pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance which is an essential
element of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused. In the present case, the
Municipal Trial Court already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused when the latter
filed for a motion for redetermination since such motion constitutes voluntary appearance. Thus,
the denial of the Municipal Trial court is not correct.
No, the denial of the MTC is not correct. The law provides that one way of acquiring jurisdiction
over the person of the accused is by his voluntary appearance or his voluntary submission to the
Court. The filing of motion by the accused constitute his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
the Court.
The denial of the MTC is not correct. Under the existing laws, the jurisdiction over the person
accused may be acquired by the court if the accused has been issued a warrant of arrest or upon
voluntary appearance. In the given case, the accused filed a motion which would constitute a
voluntary appearance. Ergo, the court already acquired jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
case.
No. The MTC's denial of the motion on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction is not correct.
There was already voluntary submission of the accused by filing of the motion for redetermination
hence the court already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
No, the denial of the MTC is not correct. According to criminal law, in determining the jurisdiction
over an accused it could either he is in custody of law meaning he is arrested or he subjects
himself to the court, that is, he presents himself to the proper court which is the MTC. In this
case, since the accused presented himself in court, he need not be arrested for the court to have
jurisdiction over his person.
The accused in a criminal case for falsification of public document filed a motion for
redetermination of probable cause before the MTC. The MTC denied the motion on the ground
that it did not have jurisdiction over the person of the accused who had not yet been arrested.
Was the remedy of the accused correct? Explain with legal basis. No, the denial of the MTC is not
correct. As a general rule, seeking affirmative relief is deemed to be a voluntary submission to the
court's jurisdiction. In this case, the voluntary submission is effected by the filing of a motion for
redetermination of probable cause before the MTC.
No. The denial of MTC is not correct. The law provides that the jurisdiction upon the person of the
accused is acquired through arrest or voluntary appearance the accused. In this case, upon the
filing of affirmative relief by the accused indicates that the jurisdiction by the MTC over the
accused is already acquired and therefore, the denial of MTC is not correct.
No, the denial of the MTC was not correct. Falsification of a public document has a imposable
penalty of not exceeding 4 years and 2 months, thus the MTC has jurisdiction over the subject
matter, and upon the filing of the motion for the redetermination of probable cause before the
court, the accused already showed a positive act which constitutes his consent to the jurisdiction
of the MTC over his person.
Yes, the denial of the MTC was correct. The accused not having been arrested nor voluntary
surrendered to the MTC, the accused are not yet within the jurisdiction of the MTC. As such, MTC
does not have the power to try, hear and decide or the power to take cognizance of the case of
the accused. Hence, the MTC does not have the jurisdiction to grant their motion.
No, the denial of the MTC is incorrect. As the accused filed a motion to redetermine probable
cause before them, which requires that probable cause be determined in the charging of the
accused, it is improper for the Court to seek jurisdiction over the person of the accused as it could
only be granted upon showing of probable cause.
Yes. The denial of MTC is correct. MTC does not have jurisdiction over the accused because he
was not yet arrested or have voluntarily surrendered. Any acts of the court on cases without
jurisdiction is null and void. Therefore, such denial is correct.
No. The MTC was not correct in denying the motion of the accused for lack of jurisdiction. The
latter's filing of the motion for redetermination of probable cause, without assailing the jurisdiction
of the MTC, is tantamount to voluntary surrender or appearance. As provided for by law, a court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused by way of the latter's voluntary surrender or
appearance, or arrest. Hence, the MTC, in this case, has jurisdiction over the accused,
notwithstanding the fact that he has not yet been arrested.
No. MTC erred in denying the motion. When the Accused sought for a relief in court the court
then automatically acquires the jurisdiction over the person.
No. The contention of the MTC that it did not have jurisdiction over the accused since she was
not yet arrested was incorrect. Arrest of an accused is not the only way by which the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The MTC acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused even through the issuance of a warrant of arrest against said person.
The denial of the MTC was incorrect. Jurisprudence provides that another way of acquiring
jurisdiction over the person of the accused happens when the accused voluntarily participates in
the proceedings by filing a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation. According to the rules on
Criminal Procedure, this act on behalf of the accused signifies his voluntary submission the the
jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, denying the motion on the basis of not having acquired
jurisdiction over the accused is incorrect.
Yes. The denial of the MTC is correct. The MTC has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the accused. Hence any motions filed by the accused is improper and the MTC cannot rule on
it for the reason that it has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Yes, the denial of the MTC is correct. MTC does not have jurisdiction over the accused. For the
court to have jurisdiction over the person, the accused should have surrendered voluntarily or
should have come to court due to an issuance of a warrant of arrest. The court could not take
cognizance of her motion because the court did not have jurisdiction over her.
Yes, the MTC was correct. The court held in several jurisprudence that for the court to afford
remedy to the accused, the court must first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused
through his surrender or arrest. In the present case, MTC has yet acquired jurisdiction over the
accused as he was not yet arrested or the accused did not voluntarily surrender before the court.
The denial of the MTC was proper. For an accused to avail of the remedies of the court he must
first submit to the jurisdiction of the court. It would be improper if not ludicrous to ask the court for
positive remedies when the accused refuse to give the court jurisdiction over his person. The only
exemption to this rule is when the accused enters into a special appearance wherein he
questions the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.
No, the denial of the Municipal Trial Court is incorrect. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the MTC
shall exercise its jurisdiction in all criminal cases involving violations of city ordinances or
regulations, and in cases with a penalty that does not exceed six years. In the case at bar, the
crime of falsification does not constitute a penalty that exceeds six years or more. Accordingly,
the MTC does have the jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Yes it is correct. The offense falsification of a public document is committed by government
employees or public officials, as provided by the Revised Penal Code. Hence, generally, it is not
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) that has jurisdiction over the case, it is the Sandiganbayan
that has jurisdiction over the case. The MTC will have jurisdiction over the case when the the
offender has a salary grade of lower than 27 and the offender is not holding a position of a
director or higher.
Yes, the denial of the MTC is correct. Under the rules, the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused forcibly through warrant of arrest or voluntary submission to the court. That
the accused was not yet arrested indicates that no warrant was issued him. This being the case,
the MTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over his person.
Yes, the denial of the MTC is correct. Under the BP129, MTC cannot accept the motion when the
court itself don't have jurisdiction over the persons of the accused. In order for the MTC to
acquire jurisdiction of the accused the following must occur: 1.) The accused must go to MTC to
present himself. 2.) By virtue of warrant of arrest issued, she was arrested. Until the MTC will not
acquire the jurisdiction over the accused, the MTC will deny the said motion.
No. The MTC was incorrect to deny the motion on the basis that it did not acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the accused. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court will acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon his voluntary surrender or receipt of the warrant
of arrest. The very purpose of the determination of probable cause is for the issuance of the
warrant of arrest in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction. As in this case, the MTC can
remand the matter back to the prosecutor for a reinvestigation or grant the motion to quash the
information on basis of failure to prove probable cause. As such, in this case, the basis of the
denial of the MTC was incorrect.
No, the denial of the MTC was not correct. Under the law, the court's jurisdiction over the person
of the accused is determined by his voluntary appearance or surrender and arrest so that he can
answer for the crime charged. In this case, although the accused had not yet been arrested nor
voluntarily appeared or surrendered, it does not mean the MTC has no jurisdiction over his
person. The issuance of the warrant of arrest was the basis for the court to acquire jurisdiction.
Because of this, the MTC already acquired jurisdiction over their persons and as such, it can hear
and decide the motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of arrest filed by them.
Also, it is important to note that custody of law is different from jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. There are instances wherein the court has jurisdiction over the person of the accused
even if the accused is not under the custody of law. This principle applies to the case at hand.
No, the denial of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) is not correct. Under the law and jurisprudence,
jurisdiction over the person of the accused is attained when a person is arrested or voluntarily
submits himself to the court. In this case, the accused submitted himself to court through filing the
motion. Hence, the MTC has jurisdiction over the person of the accused, and the denial the is
wrong.

5. While in his Raptor and hurrying home to Quezon City from his work in Makati, Alan
figured in a vehicular mishap along that portion of EDSA within the City of
Mandaluyong. He was bumped from behind by a Mazda driven by Martin who was
observed using his cellular phone at the time of the collision. Both vehicles – more
than 10 years old – no longer carried insurance other than the compulsory third party
liability insurance. Alan suffered physical injuries while his Raptor sustained damage in
excess of Php500,000. As counsel for Alan, describe the process you need to
undertake starting from the point of incident if Alan would proceed criminally against
Martin, and identify the court with jurisdiction over the case. (10%)

In order to proceed criminally against Martin, the following process is needed: 1. Require a police
investigator to make a report on the incident 2. Undergo necessary physical examinations 3.
Execute and Affidavit of Complaint and affidavits of any witnesses 4. Attached necessary
documents in support of the complaint 5. Proceed to the prosecutor and submit the complaint as
well as the affidavits and other supporting documents The court which will have jurisdiction is the
MTC of Mandaluyong because it is criminal negligence resulting in injury and damage to property.
As the counsel of Alan, I shall file the case before the Metropolitan Trial Court in the City of
Manduluyong where the mishap happened. As provided in the Rules on Criminal Procedure as a
counsel, I will file an complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court since the crime involved is
reckless imprudence which carries with a penalty 4 years and one month. As such this does not
require anymore any preliminary investigation. Also, jurisprudence provides that cases involving
crimes with penalties ranging six years or less, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) or Metropolitan
Trial court to which the crime happened shall take jurisdiction of said cases. Moreover, Municipal
Trial Courts or Metropolitan Trial Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction on cases of
Reckless Imprudence. In the case at bar, Alan figured in a vehicular accident through
imprudence. Jurisdiction of which shall be with the Metropolitan Trial Court in Mandaluyong City.
As counsel of Allan I will file a complaint or information in the Municipal Trial Court of
Mandaluyong since the accident took place within such city. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal
procedure where the offense is committed while the accused is in transit as in this case, he can
be tried in the place where crime is committed or any of its essential ingredients took place. In the
case at bar, since the offense charge is physical injuries the imposable penalty of which is lower
than 6 years and 1 day, the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaluyong City is the court who should
take cognizance of the case.
As a counsel for Alan, I would institute a complaint directly before the Municipal Trial court. The
law provides that damage to property through criminal negligence is cognizable under the
Municipal Trial court. The judge of the Municipal Trial court shall issue a warrant of arrest after 10
from the filing of the complaint if probable cause is present.
As counsel for Alan, I will have him first medically examined in order to ascertain the gravity and
the extent of injury he sustained from the accident. Second, I will secure an accurate police report
relative to the mishap unless Martin admits his fault in writing, and also I will ask Alan to secure a
car damage estimate from a car repair shop. Third, I will ask him to execute his sinumpaang
salaysay or prepare the affidavit complaint and thereafter filed it in the Municipal Trial Court in
Mandaluyong. This being the case of simple negligence and being the imposable penalty does
not exceed six months imprisonment, the Court having the original and exclusive jurisdiction is
the Municipal Trial Court in which in this case Mandaluyong.
Alan may invoke the process of preliminary investigation since the crime committed by the
accused would constitute reckless imprudence resulting to serious injury. Alan may file a sworn
complaint accompanied with affidavit which would make help case reach probable cause. 10 days
after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer will determine whether or not the case will
be dismissed or the respondent be issued a subpoena. If the respondent be issued a subpoena.
10 days after the receipt thereof, the respondent will file a counter-affidavit. Failure of the latter
would make the investigating officer resolve the case based on the information or complaint and
affidavits filed by the complainant. 10 days after the filing of the respondent's counter-affidavit,
the investigating officer now will determine whether the case be dismissed or will proceed to trial.
Either the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City or Makati City make take cognizance of the case
since the said instance falls on the exception of territorial jurisdiction. Under the existing laws, in
the commission of the crime in moving vehicles, the court where the vehicle passed including the
departure or arrival will determine the jurisdiction of the court where the case may be filed.
As counsel for Alan, I would advise him the following. First, he must secure a medical certificate
from a legitimate medical practitioner. This is to ascertain the damage of the mishap. Second, I
would tell him to secure a police report and hopefully Martin would admit that he also caused
great damage. Third, I would tell him to make a Sinumpaang Salaysay. This Sinumpaang
Salaysay would be used for the filing of the complaint, information, or affidavit. Then, I would tell
him to file such complaint, information or affidavit. In the matter of jurisdiction, since this is a case
of reckless imprudence, this should be filed before the MTC of the territorial jurisdiction of where
the offense took place or the essential elements thereof were present. If Mandaluyong has an
MTC, then it shall be filed in the MTC of Mandaluyong.
The case is considered as reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property with slight
physical injuries. In cases wherein there is damage to property due to recklessness, as provided
for by the law, the MTC,MTCC or MCTC of the place where the accident took place shall have
jurisdiction. In this case, it would be the City of Mandaluyong's jurisdiction. What Alan must do is
to first file a complaint to the proper court. He must state in his complaint the name of the
accused, event where the accident took place and the time as to when it happened. He must also
provide in his complaint the nature of the accusation and subscribe his name thereon.
As counsel for Alan, first, I would advise Alan to have himself check by a medical doctor for the
injuries suffered. Second, I would call a police to secure a police report on the incident. After
which, I will file a complaint or information to the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaluyong City since
the crime involved in the case at bar is damage to property through criminal negligence, which
the Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction on crimes with penalty of imprisonment for less than six
years and one day.
I will require my client Alan to prepare a complaint that will be submitted to the prosecutors office
stating the address of the accused with affidavits and supporting documents. I'll make sure that
the affidavits will be sworn before the prosecutor or any officers that is authorized to administer
oaths. If I were the prosecutor, I will take action upon the complaint within 10 days from filing of
the accused. After the assessment of the sword affidavits and documents, I will dismiss the
complaint if no probable cause is found or I will issue subpoena upon the accused. The accused
is required to file a counter affidavit within 10 days from the notice of subpoena. If there is need to
clarify upon the details, I will file a clarificatory proceeding but If the accused will not respond to
the subpoena, or there is no counter affidavit coming from the accused, an information will be
submitted to the superior officer for the affirmation to be submitted on the MTC. The MTC will
have the jurisdiction over the case. Base on the law, the MTC has the exclusive jurisdiction over
the offenses against property with criminal neglience regardless of the penalty and fine provided
under the alleged offense in the information.. In this case, the crime that was charged is Reckless
imprudence resulting to physical injuries. Therefore, the MTC has the jurisdiction over the case.
The process that Alan will make is that to charge martin with reckless imprudence with the MTC
of Mandaluyong City. Alan will have to file a written complaint charging Martin for the offense
committed, which will be subscribed by Alan, any peace officer, or other public officer charged
with the enforcement of the law, in this case, the PNP for vehicular mishaps. The complaint can
be filed directly to the MTC for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property, irrespective
of the amount however, for charter cities the complaint shall be filed with the office of the
prosecutor, and the prosecutor will subscribed the information to be filed with the court.
As counsel for Alan, I will have him checked up to obtain medical reports showing the extent of
the physical injuries suffered. Also, I will obtain a police report showing the sketch of the incident.
Then, I will asked Alan to write his sworn statement of what actually happened, narrating the
entirety of the circumstances leading to the vehicular mishap. I will then submit Alan's sworn
statement, together with the medical and police reports, to the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong. Since Alan suffered physical injuries and damage to property due to negligence,
the court having jurisdiction over the case in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, as
provided under BP 129.
If Alan were to proceed criminally against Martin, we will need to file a complaint against the
latter, which we will file in the Metropolitan Trial Court which will take cognizance on cases
involving Criminal Negligence Resulting to Damage to Property, regardless of the amount of
damage caused. The complaint shall state the name of the accused, the name of the offended
party, the designation of the offense, the acts and omissions complained of as a felony, the date
of the offense, and the place where the crime was committed.
Alan must undertake the following processes to proceed criminally against Martin: First, he must
secure medical certificates and other evidence, witnesses and file a complaint, sworn and signed
before the authorized persons or the notary public. After which, he may proceed to the Municipal
Trial Court(MTC) of the place the accident happened. As provided by law, MTC has jurisdiction
over crimes of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property regardless of the amount of
the object.
As counsel of Alan, I would bring him to a hospital to secure a medical certificate for the physical
injuries he suffered. Then, I would prepare his complaint affidavit and file the same to the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong, attaching his medical certificate, for the conduct of
preliminary investigation. The court with jurisdiction over the case is the RTC of Mandaluyong
City as provided in Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court in cases of chartered cities.
As Alan's counsel, first I will have him examined by a physician and undergo some physical tests
to determine the extent of his injuries. Secondly, I will ask for the police report of the mishap.
After that, I would ask Alan to execute a sinumpaang salaysay which I will then use as a basis to
prepare a complaint affidavit. Lastly, I will file the complaint to the Office of the City Prosecutor
and later on to the appropriate Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of the City of Mandaluyong.
As counsel for Alan, I will file a complaint before the Office of the Prosecutor. With the complaint,
I will submit my client's affidavits and those of the witnesses he may produce along with other
supporting documents that would support the existence of probable cause. I will furnish as many
copies as there are complainant with additional two (2) copies for the official file. Metropolitan
Trial Court (MTC), Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court maintain jurisdiction
over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence irrespective of the
amount of the imposable fine. Thus, the case of the vehicular mishap between Alan and Martin
falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Since this is a case of negligence, the court that has jurisdiction over the case is the MTC for
reckless imprudence. The process I would undertake as the counsel for Allan would be to
document the accident first, call the police to generate a police report and see if there are
physical injuries aside from the damage on the car and collect as much evidence to prove that
there was injury and therefore damages to be paid by martin to Allen. I would then reserve the
right to file a civil case before I file the criminal case against Martin or if the criminal case has
been filed by the police, I proceed with a separate civil action since the damages I seek arise
from a quasi delict.
As counsel of Alan, I will advice my client to file the case before the prosecutor since the offense
is committed in the city of Mandaluyong a chartered city. Any crime committed within the
city/chartered cities is filed before the prosecutors office regardless of the crime committed unless
the charter of the city provides. The MTC of Mandaluyong has jurisdiction over the case. Since
the crime involve has a penalty of less than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day and was committed in
the city of mandaluyong.
For cases wherein there is reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property, the court that
has jurisdiction over it is the MTC. Alan can file a complaint directly with the MTC in Mandaluyong
or in the office of the prosecutor. Alan should file a sworn written statement with the sufficient
allegations therein. The complaint should contain the name of the accused, the offense charged,
the time and place of the place where it happened.
As counsel for Alan, I will require him to have a medical examination to ascertain the gravity and
severity of the injuries he sustained from the vehicular incident. Thereafter, I will advice him to
secure a police report in the police station where the accident took place, unless Martin admits
his negligence in writing. Then, I will ask him to secure an estimate of the damage with his car
from a car repair shop as proof for the claim for damages incurred in the accident. I will then ask
Alan to execute a Sworn Statement or file a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong. Since this present case involves simple negligence with a penalty of
not more than 6 years, the complaint or information shall be filed before MTC of Mandaluyong
City, having the original and exclusive jurisdiction over the present case, regardless of the
amount of damages involved.
First, I would advise Alan to take as many pictures of the incident to be used as Annexes in the
future complaint. Second, I would get a copy of the police report of the incident which would show
who amongst the parties was liable for the mishap, this would serve as another annex for the
complaint. Third, after repairs have been made on the vehicle, and medical bills on Alan's injuries
have been taken cared off I would I will use the receipts for the medical bills and repair bills as
Annexes in the Affidavit Complaint to prove the amount of damages. Then I would draft the
Complaint of Alan specifically narrating the facts and circumstances of the accident in
chronological order, specifically alleging that Martin willfully feloniously, acted recklessly which
then led to the accident. After Affidavit Complaint has been made, I would accompany Alan to the
Prosecutor's office so that the said complaint may be subscribed in the presence of the
Prosecutor. Finally, me and Alan shall pay the appropriate filing fees. The MTC has jurisdiction
because the law provides that damages arising form reckless imprudence would be tried in the
MTC where the accident occurred regardless of the amount of damages involved.
The process that Alan needs to undertake if he would proceed criminally, to wit: (1) He shall file a
complaint or information to the appropriate court with the investigating prosecutor; (2) Within 10
days from the filing of the complaint or information in the court, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution to the prosecutor; and (3) thereafter, if the judge finds that there is
probable cause from the offense charged, he or she may issue a warrant of arrest. The Municipal
Trial Court has the jurisdiction over the case because as stated in the law, the offenses involving
reckless imprudence is under the authority of the said Court. In the case at bar, the vehicular
mishap was due to reckless imprudence of Martin. Thus, the MTC has the exclusive jurisdiction
over the case.
The case at bar is for indemnification for damage to property, hence, according to the Rules of
Court on Criminal procedure, it is the Metropolitan Trial court (MTC) which has jurisdiction over
the case, regardless of the fine. I would advise my client to file a complaint against Martin for
reckless imprudence leading to damage to property. We may then also have Martin preventively
detained. We will then gather all the factual evidence and procure the necessary affidavits in
order to prove that it is indeed Martin who was at fault and is guilty for the damage to property.
As counsel for Alan, I will have him medically checked and the car assessed in order to determine
the extent and gravity of the injuries he sustained and that of the car's. I will also secure a police
report for the incident and prepare Alan's and the possible witnesses' separate testimonies.
Depending on the outcome of the evidence I would obtain from the foregoing, the offense herein
would probably involve reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property or simple
negligence. Either way, I will institute the criminal action with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong which, under pertinent laws, has jurisdiction over damages to property through
reckless imprudence and offenses with penalty of imprisonment not exceeding 6 years such as
simple negligence.
As counsel of Allan, Upon filing of the complaint under Rule 110 sec. 4, 6,7,8,9,10, Allan can file
a written and subscribed complaint specifying the person involved, the statute applicable, and
how the incident happen, second, Sec. 9, rule 110, states that in order for the complaint to be
sufficient it has to be stated in a manner a normal person can understand also. Also, since the
incident happens in Mandaluyong, under Rule 110, sec. 15, the complaint should be file in the
place where the incident happen or one of its ingredients occurred, in this case, it should be filed
in the Office of the Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City.
As counsel for Alan, first, I will ask Alan to undergo a medical examination for the proper
determination of his condition after the vehicular accident. Thereafter, I will obtain a
comprehensive police report from the police station where the incident was reported. If there is an
admission on the part of Martin, I will obtain such admission in lieu of the police report. After
completing the affidavit complaint of Alan duly subscribed by him, I will attach the medical report
after the incident together with the police report, the admission of Martin, as applicable, and such
other documents or affidavits of witnesses to the incident, and submit the complaint before the
court having jurisdiction over the incident. In this case, since the incident may involve physical
injuries only, the penalty thereof is well within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. Also,
the damage to property is still covered by insurance; hence, will not be covered for purposes of
determining jurisdiction. Furthermore, the incident happened while traversing Mandaluyong City;
hence, I will file the complaint before the Municipal Trial Court (or Metropolitan Trial Court) of
Mandaluyong City.
As a counsel of Alan, the processes that I need to undertake are as follows: 1. I will advise him to
seek immediate medical attention to determine the extent of his injuries. I will also help him to get
a police report. 2. I will ask him to make a Sinumpaang Salaysay staying what happened which I
will be using to prepare a complaint to be given to the public prosecutor. 3. I will submit a
complaint which is subscribed and sworn to by Allen to the public prosecutor for the filing of the
information against Martin. Since the case at bar is a case involving criminal negligence, the court
which has jurisdiction thereof is the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaluyong City.
As counsel for Alan, I will ask Alan to collect evidence such a medical certificate, receipt for the
repair of his car, and affidavits of witnesses who saw Martin use his phone while driving. Next, I
will submit a Complaint and such evidences to a public prosecutor for him to determine the crime
involved which can possibly be reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and physical
injuries. The court with jurisdiction can be Municipal Trial Court (MTC) because under BP 129, as
amended, the MTC has jurisdiction over crimes with penalties not exceeding six years, and
exclusive jurisdiction over imprudence or negligence resulting to damage to property. Specifically,
applying Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, it can be the MTC of Mandaluyong, where the crime
occurred, the MTC of Makati, where the vehicle started to run, the MTC of Quezon, where Alan is
destined, and all other MTCs which the vehicle passed by during the trip.

6. Applying the facts of the preceding case, what are Alan's options with regard to
Martin's civil liability?

Alan's options with regard to Martin's civil liability are: 1. To prosecute his claim together with the
criminal liability; 2. To sign a waiver of his claim over civil liability; 3. Make a reservation to
institute a separate civil action; and 4. File a separate civil action prior the filing of criminal action.
As provided by jurisprudence, Alan has the option as regards the civil liability of Martin to: a.
Waive the civil liability; b. File a separate civil action; and c. File the civil complaint ahead of the
criminal complaint.
Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Alan's options with regard to Martin's Civil
Liability are as follows; (1) Waived the civil action; (2) Reserved his right to institute separate civil
action; (3) File a civil action prior to criminal action; (4) Or where an offense arising from other
sources of obligation.
Alan may file an independent civil action against the offender. The Civil Code provides that in
cases of fraud or physical injuries, an offended party may institute an independent civil action.
Such action shall proceed independently of the criminal action. Hence, an independent civil
action may be filed by Alan.
The options that Alan may pursue with regard to Martin's Civil liability are, as follows: A. He can
file an independent civil action and prosecute the criminal case separately. B. He can file an
independent civil action without filing the criminal case C. He can file the criminal case without
need of reserving an independent civil action.
Alan may generally availed the following options: (1) May institute the criminal liability together
with the civil liability pursuant the provisions of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure; or (2) May waive the civil action, reserved the institution of a special civil action or
institutes the civil action prior to the filing of criminal action.
Alan has the following options for Martin's civil liability. He may: a. file a civil action and file a
separate criminal action; b. file a civil action without filing a criminal action; or c. file a criminal
action without reserving his rights to a civil action
Alan's option would be to reserve his right for a civil action or he can have the civil action
consolidated with the criminal action. If he will reserve his right, the civil action will be suspended
and if the court finds that the accused is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt then Alan can still
institute a civil action against Martin. If Alan will consolidate both actions, then, whatever the
decision of the criminal case would be that of the civil case.
As provided by the rules, the following are Alan's options with regard to Martin's civil liability: a.)
waives his civil action; b.) reserves his right to institute a separate civil action; or c.) institutes a
civil action prior to criminal action.
Before the filing of the criminal action, Alan may file a civil action ahead of the criminal action for
damages in order to claim civil liabilities arising from the delict. If the criminal action is already
commenced, he may file reservation for a separate civil action before the presentation of
evidence or anytime under a reasonable circumstance to file a separate civil action. Moreover, he
may also file civil liabilities under delicts, quasi delicts, contract and quasi contract under the civil
code.
Alan may file a separate civil action for damages, he must inform the court that he will reserve his
right to such civil action. or he may institute the civil action against Martin before the institution of
the criminal action.
With regard to the civil liability of Martin, Alan may choose among the following options, as
provided under the Rules on Criminal Procedures: a) he may institute the civil action together
with the criminal action; b) waive the right to institute civil action; c) reserve the right to institute
an independent civil action; or, d) institute a civil action prior to the institution of the criminal
action.
With regard to Martin's civil liability, Alan can file a separate civil action to recover for damages
caused by Martin's negligence.
With regard to the civil liability of Martin. Since civil liability is deemed attached to the criminal
action, he may still chose to waive his rights, institute a separate civil action or file prior to the
institution of the criminal action.
Alan's options with regard to Martin's civil liability are as follows: 1. He may file an independent
civil action not based on delict; 2. He may file a civil action only and not pursue the criminal
action; or 3. He may file the criminal action where the civil action is deemed instituted.
Section 3 Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows the filing of independent
civil action by the offended party based on Article 33 and 2176 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines. Moreover, Alan could do the following: (1) File independent civil action and prosecute
criminal case separately; (2) File independent civil action without filing the criminal case; and (3)
File criminal case without need of reserving the independent civil action.
Alan has the option to waive the civil action, reserve his right to institute a separate civil action for
the recovery of civil liability arising from the vehicular accident, or to institute a civil action prior to
the criminal action.
Alan's options with regard to Martin's civil liability are 1.File a separate independent civil action for
damages 2. Reserve the right to file a civil case and proceed with the criminal case. 3.Institute
the Civil action with the criminal case and consolidate both cases where the criminal case is filed.
Upon filing of the criminal action, the civil action is deemed instituted. However, Alan has the
option with regard to the civil aspect as follows: a. Waived his right which must be clearly stated;
b. Reserve and file a separate civil action; c. File the civil action prior to the institution of the
criminal action; In the instant cases, the reservation as to the civil aspect must be file before the
presentation of the evidence of the prosecution.
The civil liability is deemed instituted in the criminal case, but Alan has an option to file for
reservation to institute a separate civil action. If he does not make a reservation, then it is
deemed instituted with the criminal case that he filed.
With regard to Alan's options on Martin's civil liability arising from the offense, as provided in Rule
11 of the Rules of Court, it is deemed instituted with the filing of the criminal action unless Alan
reserves, waives the filing of the same. Upon claims for the civil liability, it must be completely
alleged in the complaint of information as to the damages incurred from the accident and proof of
the damages must be presented such as medical certifications, police report, medical bills,
receipts and repair estimates. However, with regard to the independent civil liability of Martin,
Alan may institute the same independently separate from the criminal action as it only needs
preponderance of evidence in accordance to Articles 33 and 2176 of the New Civil Code. Alan
may pursue the independent civil action through any of the following: 1. Institute the independent
civil action separate from the criminal action; 2. Institute the criminal action without reserving the
civil action; or 3. Institute the independent civil action without filing the criminal action.
Alan can sue Martin for quasi delict. Martin acts can be construed as the proximate cause to the
damages suffered by Alan, both in terms of medical bills and in terms of damages to the vehicle.
Alan’s option with regard to Martin’s civil liability are as follows: 1. He may waive the civil action;
2. He may reserve the right to institute the civil action separately; or 3. He may institute the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
Alan's other option is to reserve an independent civil action, with regard to a special law such as
the Anti Distracted Driving law. According to Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the New Civil Code, and
independent civil action may be filed in order to to receive and award for damages rising from
either, law, contract, quasi-delict, and quasi-contract. In the case at bar, by filing an independent
civil action, regardless of the outcome from the criminal action, Alan may receive an award for
damages provided that he does not unjustly enrich himself by filing another case in another court
from the same source of obligation.
The Rules of Court empowers parties like Alan to file a civil action distinct and separate from the
criminal action. To be specific, he may file both the criminal action and the civil action
simultaneously; file the criminal action with reservation of a separate criminal action; or file the
civil action only and do away with the criminal action.
Allans option with regards to Martins Civil liability are the following under rule Rule 111 sec. 2 of
rules of criminal procedure: 1.) Upon filing the criminal case, the civil liability arising from the
offence is instituted in the criminal liability; 2.) Before arraignment, Allan can reserved the filing
civil liability for separate filing of the case, according this rule, quasi delict offences involving
reckless imprudence can be filed separate; 3.) Before arraignment, Allan can waived the civil
liability of the offence of Martins arising from the offence.
As regards the civil liability of Martin, Alan has the following options: 1. Institute a separate civil
action apart from the criminal action against Martin; 2. Institute within the criminal action against
Martin the civil action; or 3. Institute a civil action within pursuing a criminal action against Martin.
The options of Alan with regard to Martin civil liability under the law are as follows: 1. He can
waive the civil liability. 2. He can institute a civil case separately. 3. He can file a civil case prior to
the filing of a criminal action. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the civil liability, as a
general rule, is deemed instituted in the criminal case with the exceptions mentioned above.
Under Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, the civil aspect of the crime is deemed filed with the
criminal case. However, since the case involves imprudence or negligence, Alan can file an
independent civil action while the criminal case is pending. Further, Alan can waive the right to
collect Martin's civil liability.

7. When is leave of court required to amend a complaint or information BEFORE

arraignment? (10%)

Before arraignment, leave of court is required to amend a complaint or information, to wit: 1. Any
amendments which degrades the offense charged or excludes any accused from the complaint or
information; and 2. When the amendment requires substitution of complaint or information
Leave of court is required to amend a complaint or information before arraignment if there is a
new allegation to be added in the information or complaint. Moreover, a leave of court is required
when there are substantial information necessary to be added based on the new evidences
presented before the court.
Section 14, Rule 110 of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that amendment may be
formal or substantial which does not need the motion for leave of court if done before
arraignment. However, on the same rule when amendment before an arraignment is made and it
downgrades the nature of the offense charged or excludes other accused in the offense the
amendment in complaint or information may require the following requisites; (1) Motion of the
prosecution; (2) Motion for leave of court; (3) Notification to the offended party.
Under the Rules of court, after arraignment and during trial formal amendments may only be
made with leave of court. The same law also provides that amendments made before the
accused enters his plea which changes the nature of the crime or excludes the parties in the
complaint or information shall be made upon the motion of the prosecutor with leave of court.
Leave of Court is required if the amendment before plea downgrades the nature of the offense or
excludes any of the accused. Moreover, under Section 15 Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure it provides that any amendment before plea which downgrade the nature of
the offense or exclude any accused in the information or complaint can only be made upon
motion by the prosecutor with notice to the offended party and with leave of court.
Leave of court is required to amend a complaint or information before arraignment when the
amendment, whether formal or substance, causes downgrade over the crimes filed or when there
are any of the accused been acquitted or been absolved in the case. Leave of court must be
coupled with notice to the offended party and upon motion of the prosecutor.
A leave of court is required when there is substitution. There is are differences between
amendments and substitutions. In amendments, these are changes in formal and substantial
facts in which no leave of court is required. Examples of formal facts are the name of the
accused, the date, and the like. There are also substantial facts, however, these substantial facts
are those which are still present in the same allegations and still pertaining to the same offense.
In substitution, the changes are not merely formal but rather substantial. In such case, there is a
change in the nature of an offense or a crime. Further, since there would be substantial changes,
this would result to another investigation. The old information would have to be changed and the
recent one should be proceeded with. Hence, since these are material changes, leave of court is
necessary in substitution even before arraignment.
A leave of court is required in substantial amendments. Substantial amendments are those
changes which could prejudice either the right of the accused or of the plaintiff. Examples of
these would be changing the nature of the offense, changing the name of the accused or of the
plaintiff or such actions which would put the defense at a disadvantage.
Rule 110 Section 14 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that any amendment
before arraignment which changes the nature of the offense charged or excludes any of the
accused shall be allowed only upon the motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended
party and with leave of court.
The general rule is the formal and substantial amendment can be made without the motion to
leave of court provided that the amendment was done before arraignment. After the arraignment,
only formal amendment can be done by the prosecutor with a request of motion to leave of court
provided that the accused will not be prejudiced.
Leave of court to amend a complaint or information before arraignment is required when there is
amendment as to the substantial elements of the complaint, when such amendment will have an
effect of increasing the penalty charged for the offense committed.
Under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, a leave of court is required to amend a complaint or
information before arraignment when the amendment involves a downgrade of the offense
charged from one with a higher penalty to that with a lesser penalty or when amendment involves
a removal of one of the accused in the said information. If such amendments are made before
arraignment, the same must be upon the motion filed by the prosecutor, with due notice to the
offended party, and with leave of court.
Leave is court is required to amend a complaint when the amendment is that the offense is
lowered and some accused in the complaint or information are to be excluded in the amendment.
Along with leave of court, it is required that all the parties in the case shall be notified.
A leave of court is not required to amend a complaint or information before arraignment. The
Rules of Court provides that amendment in the complaint or information in form or in its
substance, without leave of court, must be made before the accused enters his plea. After he
enters his plea or during trial, only formal amendment, with leave of court must be made, without
prejudice to the right of the accused. Before arraignment, or before the accused enters his plea,
amendment, formal or substantial is still allowed by the rules of court. So long as it does not
prejudice the constitutional rights of the accused to know the nature of the accusations against
him and his right to defend himself.
Under Rule 110, Section 14 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, leave of court is
required to amend a complaint or information when the nature of the offense charged is
downgraded or an accused is excluded from the complaint or information upon motion of the
prosecutor and notice to the offended party.
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that Leave of Court is
require on the following instances: (1) Downgrading the nature of the offense charged in; or (2)
Excluding any accused from the complaint or information.
Amendment in the complaint or information before arraignment which downgrades the nature of
the offense charged or excludes any of the accused in the complaint or information may be done
upon motion by the prosecutor with notice to the offended party and with leave of court.
According to the Rules on Criminal Procedure, leave of court is required to amend a complaint of
information before arraignment in the event that the amendment is formal or substantial. Formal
amendments are changes to information submitted to the court that are not material to the
offense committed and does not alter the nature of the crime being alleged. Examples are
amendments to the name of the accused or the time of the crime committed unless it is material
to the crime. However, substantial amendments require leave of court when the new information
does not prejudice any of the parties such as amending information to include a higher penalty or
when the defense of the accused or the evidence presented in the first information does not apply
to the amended information.
Before arraignment, leave of court is necessary in formal or substantial amendment when it; a.
Downgrades the nature of the crime or b. Any of the accused is removed in the information. In
this case, motion of the prosecutor is necessary and the offended party must be notified.
Leave of court is required to amend a complaint or information when there is a prejudicial
question. When the prejudicial question is important for the determination of the criminal liability
of the accused on the case against him, the amendment of the complaint or information is very
important therefore the need for leave of court.
As a general rule provided in Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, amendment as to form
and substance can be done before arraignment without leave of court. But as an exception, when
the amendment involves a downgrade of the offense charged in the information or excludes any
of the accused in the same, it can be done before arraignment provided that following requisites
are complied, to wit: 1. Upon motion of the prosecutor; 2. Upon notice to the offended party; and
3. Upon leave of court.
Leave of court must be made when the amendment is substantial such as when there is a
substitution of the accused or when the nature of the complaint will be materially changed. An
example of this is when there is when the allegations allege a different crime, added additional
persons as accused, and alleged qualifying or special aggravating circumstances.
The leave of court is required to amend a complaint or information in the following instances: 1.
The amendment downgrades the nature of the offense charged; or 2. The amendment excludes
any accused from the complaint or information. If the amendment is made by the accused before
he enters his plea, the complaint or information may be amended in form or substance without
the leave of court.
Leave of court to amend a complaint or information before arraignment is not required, may it be
a formal or substantial amendment. A leave of court is only required after arraignment and only
when a substantial amendment shall be made.
Leave of court is required to amend a complaint or information before arraignment in the case of
amendments in form and substance. It applies when the offense involves violation of a crime
punishable with penalty not exceeding 4 years, 2 months and 1 day.
Under Rule 110, sec. 14, the leave of court is required, when there is a downgrade of offence,
upon the notice of the prosecutor to the offended party not in prejudice of the right of the accused
before the accused the entered his plea, or when there is changed in information file by the party.
In the following instances, a leave of court is required before an amendment be made on a
complaint or information: 1. When the amendment will result to an offense with a reduced or
lower penalty; or 2. When the amendment will exclude some of the accused from the information.
In these instances, the prosecutor can only proceed with the amendment upon leave of court, and
notice to the parties.
The leave of court is required to amend a complaint or information before arraignment when there
is a downgrade of the offense charged from a higher offense to a lower offense or when one of
the accused is removed from the information or complaint. This is in relation to Sec. 14, Rule 110
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which states that an amendment before the
arraignment needs to be instituted by the public prosecutor, he must file a motion for leave of
court, and he must notify the offended party.
Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, a leave of court is required to amend a complaint or
information before arraignment when the amendment will downgrade the nature of the offense
involved, or when the amendment will remove an accused from the charge. In such case, the
prosecutor must file a motion, and inform the offended.

8. Ralph, Peter and Miguel were charged with murder. Upon the filing of the information,
the RTC Judge issued warrants for their arrest. Learning of the issuance of the
warrants, the three accused jointly filed a Motion for Reinvestigation and for the recall
of the warrants of arrest. On the date set for hearing of their motion, none of the
accused showed up in court for fear of being arrested. The RTC judge denied their
motion because the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the movants.
Was the RTC correct?

No, the RTC was incorrect in denying their motion because it did not acquire jurisdiction over the
persons of the movants. The rules provide that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired if the persons submits themselves before the court either by being arrested or by
voluntary appearance. Jurisprudence provides that the filing of a pleading before the court is
considered as voluntary appearance. In this case, the movants filed a Motion for Reinvestigation
and for the recall of the warrants of arrest. Although the 3 accused failed to appear on the
schedule hearing, the fact that they filed a motion before the court, it already tantamount to
submission to the court's jurisdiction by voluntary appearance. Therefore, the RTC was incorrect
in denying their motion because it did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the movants.
No, RTC was incorrect. According to jurisprudence, a court may only acquire jurisdiction over the
persons of the accused when he submits himself voluntarily before the court or during his arrest.
Moreover, jurisdiction over the persons of the accused is deemed acquired when the accused
seeks for the affirmative relief of the court. The exception to which, an accused files for bail in
which, the court has to acquire jurisdiction first before it grants the petition. In the case at bar, the
court does not need to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the accused since what they have
filed is Motion for Reinvestigation which is an affirmative relief from the court. The RTC deemed
to have acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the accused at such instance.
RTC is not correct. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure when an accused seek for
reliefs in court, the court already acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The law
provides that for the court to have jurisdiction of the person of the accused they must be brought
to trial by warrant of arrest or voluntary surrender. Under the same law it provides however that
custody of law is required for the grant of bail but when the person seeks relief in courts, the court
deemed to have jurisdiction over that person. In this case, when they file for motion for
reinvestigation they are deemed to have submitted over the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, the
contention of the RTC judge is not proper.
No, the Regional Trial court is not correct. The Supreme Court held that filing pleadings seeking
affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance which is an essential element in acquiring
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. In the present case, the Regional Trial court already
acquired jurisdiction over Ralph, Peter and Miguel when they filed a motion for reinvestigation
since such motion constitutes voluntary appearance. Thus, The Regional Trial court is not
correct.
No the RTC is not correct in denying the motion for reinvestigation. The filing for the motion of
Reinvestigation constitute the submission by the movant to the jurisdiction of the Court. It is well
settled that one way of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused is his voluntary
appearance of his submission to the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence in the case at bar the filing of
motion for reinvestigation concludes that the court acquire jurisdiction over the movants.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in their decision of denying the motion due to failure to
acquire jurisdiction. Under the existing laws, a court may acquire jurisdiction over the person
accused by arrest or voluntary submission. In the given case, there is an acquisition of jurisdiction
by the RTC upon the filing by the accused of the motion for reinvestigation which would constitute
the defendants' voluntary submission.
No. The RTC was not correct in denying their motion. Parties who are seeking affirmative relief
has already submitted themselves to the court. For the court to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the accused, there are two ways, first is that they are issued a warrant, or they
voluntarily submitted themselves and the second is that they are called through coercive
processes. In this case, even without a warrant, the three accused filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation. The act of filing a Motion for Reinvestigation is tantamount to voluntary
submission. In such case, the court already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Yes, the RTC judge was correct. For the accused to be subjected to a reinvestigation, they must
first submit their selves to the proper court, in this case, it was the RTC. According to
jurisprudence, a court cannot grant any motion if a person will not subject itself under its
authority. It also would be not right to grant their motion when in fact they are defying the law and
are evading their warrants.
No, the RTC was not correct. Under the law, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired when the accused is brought in the court's presence forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon
voluntary submission to the court. In the present case, the RTC Judge already issued warrants
for their arrest, hence, jurisdiction over the accused exist.
No, the RTC is not correct. The jurisdiction upon the person of the accused was obtained by the
court upon the filing of the accused for affirmative relief to the court specifically the motion for
reinvestigation In this case, the filing of motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of the
warrants of arrest by the accused indicated the acquisition of jurisdiction by the RTC over them.
Thus, the contention of RTC is untenable.
No, the RTC was not correct. Clearly, murder is punishable by more than 6 years which is
cognizable by the RTC as they were not in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The
positive act of the accused on assailing the warrants of arrest and filing of a motion for
reinvestigation indicated that they consented to the jurisdiction of the court. The RTC has already
acquired jurisdiction when an information was filed for murder and with the subsequent issuance
of the warrants of arrest.
Yes, the RTC was correct in denying their motion. However, it is not because the RTC did not yet
acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the movants but because investigation is not within the
jurisdiction of the courts. Motion for reinvestigation should be filed before the Office of the
Prosecutor, when the accused are not satisfied of the results of the preliminary investigation, prior
to the filing of the information before the Courts. Once the information has been filed before the
Court, the Office of the Prosecutor are now limited to the investigatorial activities of the case
while the Court obtains the jurisdiction to try, hear and decide on the case based on the
evidences submitted before it. Nevertheless, should the Court allow for the reinvestigation, the
case falls outside of their scope and goes back to the scope of the Office of the Prosecutor. In no
way should the judiciary branch, the Courts, encroach upon the scope of the executive, the Office
of the Prosecutor and vice versa.
Yes, the RTC is correct. In order for the RTC to take jurisdiction over the case, it would mean that
they would also need to take jurisdiction of the persons of the accused. In a Preliminary
Investigation, there is that opportunity to be informed of the complaint and the opportunity to
present evidence. Before a motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of arrest is
issued, the accused should submit themselves to the court in order to make a determination.
Yes. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge is correct in denying their motion. The court can
acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the accused in two ways: when the accused voluntarily
surrenders; or by arrest. In the case provided, Ralph, Peter and Miguel did not present
themselves and voluntarily surrender to face the charges against them nor were arrested. The
RTC does not have jurisdiction yet over the persons of the accused. Therefore, the RTC judge is
correct in denying their motion for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the movants.
No. The RTC's denial of the motion was not correct. The filing of the accused of their joint motion,
without questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC, is tantamount to voluntary surrender or
appearance. Hence, in this case, although Ralph, Peter and Miguel did not appear during the
hearing, it does not follow that the RTC has not acquired jurisdiction over them since jurisdiction
over the person of the accused is acquired through voluntary surrender or appearance or arrest.
No. When Ralph, Peter and Miguel files a motion for reinvestigation and the recall of the warrants
of arrest, the court already acquires the jurisdiction over the persons of the movants. According to
the Supreme Court, the positive relief sought by the respondents automatically vests the court the
jurisdiction. Thus, the RTC is not correct in denying their motion.
Yes. According to jurisprudence, a person cannot seek relief from the court where where such
person continuously refuses to submit and surrender to the court's jurisdiction. He who invokes
the court's jurisdiction must first submit to its jurisdiction. Here, not attending the hearing of their
motion, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of Ralph, Peter and Miguel.
Therefore, the RTC was correct in dismissing the Motion filed by the three accused.
The RTC correct in denying the accused motion for reinvestigation and the recall of warrants of
arrest. According to the Rules on Criminal procedure the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person by either voluntary surrender or arrest. However, an exception to this general rule is when
a person participates in a proceeding by filing an answer to the court of moving for
reconsideration and in this case investigation. It is a well settled rule that a person submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court when he participates in the proceedings against him so long
as the participation is not to quash the case or dismiss it invoking lack of jurisdiction. Since the
motion submitted by the accused was for reinvestigation, the court through this motion acquired
jurisdiction on the persons of the accused. As to the recall of the warrants of arrest, this action is
immaterial since the point of issuing the warrants of arrest was to place the accused under the
court's jurisdiction. Since they already submitted themselves through their motion for
reinvestigation it would be useless to recall the warrants since the court will have to issue them
again. The supreme court stated that recalling warrants of arrest is making a mockery out of the
judicial process.
Yes, the RTC is correct. There are two ways to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused to wit; a. Voluntary surrender or appearance; b. Upon his arrest In the instant case, the
court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Any motions filed by the
accused is not correct and the RTC cannot decide on it. Therefore the RTC is correct in denying
the motion.
Yes, the RTC is correct. The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the three accused. There are
two ways before the court can have jurisdiction over the person of the accused. First, it can be by
force through the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Second, it can be by voluntary surrender of the
accused to the proper authority. In the case at bar, the three accused did not come to the court
despite the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Therefore, the RTC could not grant the Motion for
Reinvestigation.
No, the ground of RTC's denial was not correct. RTC has already acquired jurisdiction over the
case when the information was filed before the said court and by the same, the principle of
adherence of jurisdiction already applies. Through the same principle, the RTC's jurisdiction
cannot be ousted by the happening of an event when jurisdiction has already attached.
Nonetheless, in hearing for motions, accused are not required to appeal when they lawfully
authorized a counsel to appear for them before the court.
The action of the judge was proper. To avail of the remedies prayed for by the accused, the
jurisdiction of their person must first be acquired by the court. It would be improper if not ludicrous
to ask the court for positive remedies when the accused refuses to give the court jurisdiction over
their persons. As such the court correctly denied the motions of the accused.
No, the contention of the Regional Trial Court is untenable. As provided for by the Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, the Regional Trial Court Shall exercise its jurisdiction in all criminal cases
not within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, and in all criminal cases which have a
penalty that exceeds six years. In the foregoing facts, Ralph, Peter, and Miguel is charged with
the crime of murder, wherein it constitutes a penalty of more than six years. Therefore, the RTC
is incorrect that they did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused because the said
crime is under their jurisdiction.
No, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was incorrect. According to the Supreme Court, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person when they voluntarily submits themselves or appears before
the court or when he is arrested. In the case at bar, the moment Ralph, Peter, and Miguel filed a
a joint Motion for Reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of arrest, the courts then
validly claimed jurisdiction over their persons through such act of the accused. Hence, the RTC
was incorrect, the court had jurisdiction over them.
No, the RTC judge is incorrect. Under the rules, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the accused forcibly through warrant of arrest or voluntary submission to the court. Here, Ralph,
Peter and Miguel's joint Motion for Reinvestigation has the effect of voluntary submission to the
court, such that the latter has already acquired jurisdiction over their persons.
Yes the RTC is correct in denying their motion. Under rule 112, sec. 7, The RTC can only
entertain the motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of warrant of arrest if the said person are
under the Jurisdiction of the court. In order for the the court to have jurisdiction of Ralph, Peter,
and Miguel, they should first go to the RTC or by virtue of warrant of arrest issued to them, unless
this is satisfied the court cannot entertain the motion for reinvestigation.
No. The RTC was not correct in dismissing their motion on the ground that it did not acquire
jurisdiction over the persons of the accused. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the accused
is afforded the opportunity to ask for a preliminary investigation if the accused is not amenable to
the preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor. What the RTC judge could have done
is to a) grant the motion and have the prosecutor reinvestigate the matter, or b) deny the motion
not on the basis of failure to acquire jurisdiction over their persons but to deny the motion and
proceed with the issuance of the warrants of arrest if the RTC judge believes that there is a
probable cause to issue the warrants. The very purpose of the issuance of the warrants of arrest
against is in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction upon Ralph, Peter and Miguel upon the
receipt of such warrant. As such, to dismiss the motion on basis of failure to acquire jurisdiction is
of no moment in this case.
No, the RTC was not correct because it already acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the
movants. Under the law, the jurisdiction over the person of the accused is determined by the
voluntary appearance or surrender of the accused or by arrest so he can answer for the crime
charged. In the case at bar, although the three accused did not showed up in court for fear of
being arrested, the issuance of the warrant of arrest was the basis for the court to acquire
jurisdiction. Because of this, the RTC already acquired jurisdiction over their persons and as
such, it can hear and decide the motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of
arrest filed by them. Also, it is important to note that custody of law is different from jurisdiction
over the person of the accused. There are instances wherein the court has jurisdiction over the
person of the accused even if the accused is not under the custody of law. This principle applies
to the case at hand.
No, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is not correct. Jurisdiction over the person is acquired when
the person is arrested or when the person submits himself to court such as when that persons
files motions which do not question the jurisdiction of the said court. In this case, the RTC
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of Ralph, Peter and Miguel as they filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of arrest, which do not question the jurisdiction
of the RTC. Hence, the RTC is wrong as it acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the movants.

9. Juan was arrested, in flagrante, for robbing a bank. After an investigation, he was
brought before the office of the prosecutor for inquest, but unfortunately no inquest
prosecutor was available. May the bank directly file the complaint with the proper
court? Explain the proper procedure. (10%)

No, a bank may not directly file the complaint with the proper court because the situation does not
fall to that allowed by the rules as regards the filing of a complaint in the absence or unavailability
of a prosecutor. The rules on criminal procedure provide that an offended party, a police officer,
or any other person tasked with the enforcement of a law may file a complaint before the
prosecutor by submitting an affidavit of the complainant and its witnesses together with the
supporting documents. The prosecutor thereafter will conduct preliminary investigation to
determine probable cause that the responded is probably guilty of the offense charged and will
cause the filing of the information in court. In cases of arrest without warrant, preliminary
investigation may not be made provided an inquest proceedings has been conducted. The rules
likewise state that in the absence or unavailability of the prosecutor, the complaint may be filed
by the complainant, the police officer, or any other person tasked in the enforcement of the law.
Jurisprudence likewise dictates that prosecutors are the ones task to investigate and determine
probable cause whether a respondent will be tried in court. In this case, although it appears that
during the inquest proceeding there was no available prosecutor, there exists a prosecution's
office. This is not the absence or unavailability contemplated in the rules. Hence, the bank may
not file directly with the proper court considering that there exists a prosecution's office, the one
mandated by law to file information with the court.
Yes the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. According to jurisprudence,
inquest proceeding and preliminary investigation is not required in cases where the accused was
caught in flagrante delicto. The bank may file a complaint in writing directly to the Regional Trial
Court indicating the name of the accused, designation of the offense described in the statute,
place of the commission of the crime and the offended party.
Yes. The bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. Based on the allegation in the
complaint and information an accused caught in flagrante delicto is a form of lawful warrantless
arrest. In this case, preliminary investigation under Section 1, Rule 112 does not apply, inquest
proceeding applies. Under the Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure in
the absence of a public prosecutor any officer authorized by law may prosecute the case.
However, the provision under section 5 has already been amended it provides that in the
absence of Public prosecutor a private prosecutor with authority in form of writing by Chief
Prosecution office and with the approval of the court. Hence, the private prosecutor may
prosecute the offense upon filing of complaint of the bank with their sworn statement in writing
under oath.
Yes, the bank may directly file a comlaint. Under the rules of court, when a person is validly
arrested of an offense which does not require a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor may file
directly the complaint or information without conducting a preliminary investigation. In the
absence of a prosecutor, the offended party may directly file the complaint or information. In the
present case, since the prosecutor is not available, the bank may directly file the complaint in
court without a preliminary investigation. However, the offender may ask for a preliminary
investigation upon filing a proper motion. Thus, the bank may directly file a complaint.
Yes , the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. In this case, since the
offender was arrested in flagrante delicto without a warrant of arrest, an inquest proceeding
should be conducted by the inquest prosecutor . Under Section 6 Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure,, in the absence or unavailability of the inquest prosecutor, the complaint
may be filed directly by the offended party or peace officer or peace officer in charge with the
enforcement of the law violated provided that an inquest proceeding shall be conducted and in
accordance with existing rules.
Yes. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Prosedures, the public prosecutor is the one who files
the complaint or information in the court. However, the bank through the public prosecutor may
directly file the complaint with the proper court provided that the public prosecutor is not available
in the municipality or territory where the crime is committed or when there is an express approval
of the court that the private prosecutor may be allowed to file the complaint or information.
Yes. As mentioned in the Rules of Court, in the absence of a prosecutor, a case may be filed with
the proper court. In the abovementioned case, the bank, or any proper party, a peace officer, or
any peace officer who has jurisdiction over the case can file directly with the court a complaint or
information. Juan here was caught in flagrante. Lawful arrests without warrants usually require
the institution of a criminal offense under Sec. 1 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court but under the
same Rule where in the absence of prosecutors, the offended party may file directly with the
court. In this case, the court may determine whether or not there is probable cause for the arrest
of Juan and should a warrant of arrest pursue after finding such probable cause and whether or
not such court should acquire in their jurisdiction the offender.
No, the bank cannot file a complaint with the proper court. In cases where a person was arrested
without warrant, during the conduct of the investigation, the arrested person must be provided
with an inquest prosecutor so that he would be informed of his rights. Without such, there would
be no due process and a complaint or information cannot be filed.
Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court as provided by the rules. Under
the law, in places where there is no available prosecutor or peace officer in-charge with the
enforcement of the law, the offended party may institute the criminal action. The bank shall
submit a sworn and subscribed affidavit alleging the crime committed by Juan.
No. the bank cannot directly file the complaint with the proper court. Under Section 6, Rule 112,
when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a
preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need
of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules.
In the absence of inquest prosecutor, the inquest proceeding may be done by the national
prosecutor or the regional prosecutor. In this case, the bank directly file the complaint with the
proper court without the inquest proceeding. In result, the judge will order for reinvestigation in
order for the inquest proceeding will be conducted.
Yes, for arrest without a warrant, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. In
this situation, the court which the complaint was filed attained the jurisdiction over the person of
the accused. the court will now determine the penalty to be imposed to the offender. However,
the offender may file a motion for reinvestigation for such offense after giving his waiver for
arbitrary detention and filing a petition for bail. The court will now order the office of the
prosecutor to conduct the preliminary investigation.
Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. Under Section 6, Rule 112 of
the Rules of Court, when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense
which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a
prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in
accordance with existing rules. However, when there is no available inquest prosecutor, the
offended party may directly file the complaint before the proper court, provided that upon the
availability of the inquest prosecutor, the case shall follow through with the inquest proceedings in
accordance with the rules on criminal procedures. Hence, in the case at bar, the bank, being the
offended party, may directly file the complaint with the proper court.
No, the bank cannot directly file a complaint with the proper court. As per Rule 112 in the Rules of
Court, an inquest prosecutor is necessary in order to determine whether or not the accused
should be held for trial. As inquest is necessary for lawful warrantless arrests, it cannot be
dispensed with. Thus, what they should do is to seek a prosecutor that will conduct the inquest
proceedings with Juan. They shall then determine if he had to be held for trial. If Juan wishes for
preliminary investigation to be conducted, he should sign a waiver of Article 125 of the RPC. If
not, then the complaint can then be filed by the bank.
Yes. The bank may file directly with the proper court. It is provided that in absence of the
prosecutor, a complaint may be filed directly to the court of proper jurisdiction. There are
instances where the prosecutor are not available. To deliver speedy disposition of cases, the law
has provided alternatives. One is the direct filing of complaint to the court of proper jurisdiction.
Provided, there is an affidavit stating the unavailability of the prosecuting body. This should also
signed and sworn by the said bank and the peace officers, together with the evidence and the
witness they adduced. Provided further, there is approval from the Municipal or State prosecutor.
Yes. Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that in cases where there is
unavailability of inquest prosecutor, the offended party, any peace officer or the public officer
charged with the enforcement of the law violated, may directly file the complaint before the proper
court based on the affidavit of the offended party or the arresting officer or person. The bank,
which is the offended party in the present case, may file the complaint directly to the proper court.
Yes. The bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court as provided in Section 5, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, whenever the prosecutor is not available
thereto, the offended party, peace officer or public officer charged with the enforcement of law
violated may prosecute the case. However if there is a private prosecutor, which is authorized by
the Chief of Prosecution Office or Regional State Prosecutor and with the approval of the court,
then private prosecutor shall prosecute.
Yes. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, in the absence or unavailability of an
inquest prosecutor, the offended party or the peace officer, may file the complaint or information
directly with the proper court based on the affidavit submitted by the complainant, or the arresting
officer, or person. Here, since no inquest prosecutor was available, the bank, as the offended
party, may file the complaint or information directly with the proper court.
Yes. The bank my directly file the complaint with the proper court. Under the rules of criminal
procedure , an offended party or the arresting officer may file a complaint directly to the court.
Since Juan was caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for inquest and the bank as the
offended party may the criminal case against him in the office of the prosecutor or if the city or
municipality has not charter than straight to the proper court.
No. The bank cannot file the case directly in the court. In case of warrantless arrest, the person
arrested is brought before the prosecutor's office for inquest proceeding. Inquest proceeding is an
informal proceeding to determine whether the person arrested has committed the crime and there
is a reason for the court to continue having custody over the person arrested and be charged
before the court. In case there is no prosecutor available, the person cannot be detained beyond
the period of time allowed by the law to detain him. Unless Juan will file a motion to conduct
preliminary investigation and waived his right not to file a case for arbitrary detention against the
authority, the continued custody of Juan violates his right. Hence Juan will be released. The bank
will file another complaint before the prosecutors office and await for a resolution for the filing of
the information in the court. Thereafter the court will issue warrant of arrest to acquire jurisdiction
over the person of Juan upon finding of probable cause.
Yes, the bank can directly file the complaint with the proper court. In the absence of an inquest
prosecutor, the offended party can directly file with the court his or her complaint. Upon the
request of Juan, he can request for a preliminary investigation but only with five days. The
preliminary investigation shall be terminated within 15 days. If he did not request for a preliminary
investigation, then the prosecution shall evaluate on the merits of the complaint of the offended
party.
Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court even when no inquest
prosecutor was available. Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides that when a person
was lawfully caught without a warrant of arrest or was caught inflagrante delicto, a complaint or
information may be filed before the proper court, when there is no inquest prosecutor is available,
by the offended party or the peace officer on the basis of a duly subscribed affidavit from the
offended party or the arresting officer.
No, the bank could not file the complaint with the court. Being put into inquest is a right of Juan
and cannot be skipped. On the side of Juan, the following procedure must be followed: First,
Juan must be provided with a lawyer, usually form the PAO if he has no private counsel. Second,
Juan must waive his right in relation to the time limit for being detained in custodial investigation.
Third, Juan can Move for Inquest proceedings to be scheduled at a later date.
Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. In a well-settle rule, since the
accused was arrested in flagrante delicto, the case may still prosper if an inquest proceeding will
be conducted and the case my be filed in court even without a requisite preliminary investigation.
In the instant case, because Juan was arrested, in flagrante delicto, for robbing a bank, the court
may still conduct an inquest proceedings even without a requisite preliminary investigation
thereof. Consequently, the bank may directly file a complaint with the proper court.
Yes, the bank may file directly file the complaint with the proper court. According to the Rules of
Court on Criminal procedure, in the event that there is no prosecutor in the given locality, then the
offended party may file directly to the proper court. In the case at bar, there was no prosecutor
available, hence it is only proper to file the complaint directly to the proper court.
Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. Under the Rules of Court, in
the event the offender is lawfully arrested without warrant and in the absence or unavailability of
an inquest prosecutor, the offended party ay directly file the complaint or information before the
proper court based on the affidavit. Applying this in the instant case, the bank may validly directly
institute the complain with the proper court based on the affidavit.
Yes, the bank can file the complaint with the proper court. Under Rule 112, sec 3, it is well stated
that upon the absence of the prosecutor for inquest, the offended party can file the directly the
complaint with the proper court provided that the proper documents required are complied with of
the offended party.
Yes. The bank may proceed with filing the complaint with the proper court. Under the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, in cases of warrantless arrest, an inquest proceeding, which is summary in
nature, will proceed in lieu of a preliminary investigation. In the absence of an inquest prosecutor,
the offended party, peace officer, or other public officer, may file a complaint directly to the court.
The complaint must be subscribed by the offended party, peace officer, or other public officer, as
applicable. In this case, however, Juan is required to sign a waiver of his rights under Art. 125 of
the Revised Penal Code while in custody of the law pending the determination of probable cause
by the court. The court will then determine within 10 days from the submission of the complaint
whether there is probable cause as regards the offense committed by the accused. If the judge is
not satisfied with the evidence provided, the judge may direct for the submission of additional
evidence within 10 days. After the lapse of the 10-day period or upon submission of additional
evidence, the judge will decide whether or not there is probable cause.
Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court since it's a warrantless arrest
as provided by Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Under such rule, a
preliminary investigation does not apply to cases involving warrantless arrest. In the absence of
an inquest prosecutor, the offended party or a peace officer can sign the complaint and file it
directly in court without the inquest procedure.
Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
is to be applied in this case. Since the respondent was caught in flagrante and there was no
available inquest officer, the bank, who is the offended party, may file the complaint directly with
the proper court. The bank should include its affidavits or affidavits of the arresting officer or
person.

10. Peter was accused of Homicide for killing Lani. During the trial, the trial prosecutor
received the marriage certificate of Peter and Lani. May the prosecutor amend the
Information to Parricide? Explain the proper procedure.
Yes, the prosecutor may, with leave of court, amend the Information to Parricide considering that
it pertains only to a formal amendment. The rules provide that a formal amendment after entry of
plea, with leave of court, is allowed provided that this will not prejudice the rights of the accused
to be informed of the accusations against him and to deprive him in the preparation of his
defense. In contrast to substantial amendments which is not allowed pertain to those changes in
the manner of commission, the name of offended party, date of the offense, the fact and ground
of responsibility, and those charges an offense not originally charged in the information. In this
case, amending homicide to parricide will not prejudice the accused of his rights to be informed
and his right to prepare his defense because the fact of killing Lani still remains, the same reason
for his indictment. If his defense to the homicide is he was not at the scene of the crime, same
defense may be used if the case is parricide. Therefore, the prosecutor may, with leave of court,
amend the Information to Parricide because this is only a formal amendment.
No, the prosecutor may not amend the the Information to Parricide. The Rules on Criminal
Procedure provide that if a case is already on trial a prosecutor may only amend an Information
by filing a leave of court in order to enter such substantial information in the Information. The
court, after shall explain to the accused the reasons for granting the said motion while the
accused may be given the right to examine the evidence/s to be presented.
Under Section 10, Rule 110 of the Revised Rule on Criminal Procedure, the amendment from
Homicide to Parricide is a substantial amendment , which may be done with the leave of court
provided that it will not prejudice the rights of the accused as in this case. Amendment based on
the facts laid down will prejudice the rights of Peter. The presentation of marriage certificate of
Peter and Lani is immaterial to the offense charge to Peter for it is not properly alleged in the
complaint or information filed before trial. It violates the right of Peter of be informed of the nature
of the offense charged against him. Therefore, the amendment from homicide to parricide is not
proper.
No, the prosecutor cannot amend the information. The Rules of court provides that during trial
formal amendments shall only be made with leave of court. In the present case, an amendment
form homicide to parricide is a substantial amendment since it changes the nature of the offense.
Only formal amendments may be made after arraignment. Thus, the prosecutor may cannot the
information.
No the prosecutor cannot amend the information from Homicide to Parricide after arraignment or
during the trial since it constitute as substantial amendment as provided in Section 14 Rule 110 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the same rule it provides after arraignment only
formal amendment is allowed and such amendment can only be made with leave of court and
when it can be done without causing injury to the rights of the accused. Hence , any substantial
amendment is not allowed since that would violate Peter's constitutional right to be informed of
the charged against him.
No. The prosecutor is barred to amend the information to Parricide. Under Section 14, Rule 110
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, only the formal amendment will be allowed after the
arraignment with leave of court and the accused's rights will not be prejudiced. In the case at bar,
the prosecutor's proposed amendment would constitute a substantial amendment where the
accused's rights will be prejudiced. Hence, the prosecutor's amendment of the crime will not be
sustained.
No. The prosecutor cannot amend the information from Homicide to Parricide. First, the accused
has the right to be informed of the charges against him. If what was alleged in the information
was Homicide, then the prosecution should proceed with homicide. If Parricide would be
considered, there is degradation of the offense which is not allowed. Amendments are allowed
only before the arraignment and before trial. During the trial, only formal amendments are
allowed. The trial should proceed only with what has been alleged in the information. The reason
for which is that the accused has the right to be informed of the nature and the cause against
him. Hence, the presentation of the certificate by the prosecutor is not proper.
The prosecutor can no longer amend the information. According to the law, substantial and formal
amendments can take place before the arraignment or before the trial will take place. Substantial
amendments are those which could prejudice either the accused or the plaintiff's rights while
formal amendments are those typographical or clerical errors that can be changed without
prejudicing anyone's rights. The moment that the trial begins, the prosecutor can no longer make
any substantial amendments. In this case, the penalty of parricide is much heavier as compared
to homicide. Changing the information would prejudice the right of the accused. It would be unjust
to change it during trial as it will be a form of surprise to the defendant and it will affect what the
defense counsel has prepared. The proper procedure for this would be substitution, in which the
prosecutor will cancel the current information and create a new one, thus, creating a new trial.
No, the prosecutor cannot amend the information to Parricide. As provided in Rule 110, Section
14 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, substantial amendment after arraignment is not
allowed, only formal amendment. However, it may be substituted with leave of court. In the case
at bar, amending the information to parricide constitutes a substantial amendment which will
prejudice the right of Peter to due process of law, hence, cannot be amended.
No, The prosecutor may not amend the information to parricide. After the arraignment, substantial
amendments will not be allowed because only formal amendments in the formation are allowed
by the court. In this case, the amendment of Homicide to Parricide is considered substantial
amendment because it changes the nature of the offense charge and it compels the accuse to
prepare another controverting evidences against the offense charge by the complainant. Only
formal amendment can be made during trial. Thus, the amendment of information is not proper.
No, the prosecutor cannot amend to information to Parricide as it prejudices the accused and
charges him to a penalty with the aggravating circumstances of relationship. An amendment to
the substantial element of the information may only be allowed before the accused enters his
plea and in this case, it has already proceeded to trial and that this occurs after the plea of not
guilty has been made. The amendment in this stage of the proceedings may only be allowed as
to formal elements of the information with leave of court being filed by the prosecutor.
No, the prosecutor cannot amend the information to parricide. Rules on Criminal Procedures
provide that substantive amendments, such as those which change the nature of the offense
charged in the information, cannot be made during trial. Substantive amendments may only be
made prior to plea bargaining and trial. Moreover, the existence of marriage between Peter and
Lani is not a prejudicial question which would bear effect to the offense of homicide charged
against Peter in this case. Allowing the prosecutor to do the same would be violative of the
constitutional right of Peter to due process, which necessarily includes to right to be informed of
the nature of the offense charged against him. Hence, the prosecutor may not amend the
information to parricide.
No, the trial prosecutor cannot amend the information to Parricide. Under Rule 110 of the Rules
of Court, while amendments to the information are allowed before a plea is entered, substantial
amendments to the information is not allowed as this may result in double jeopardy to the
accused. Because the change of the information is substantial, in that it substantially changed the
nature of the offense from Homicide to that of Parricide, and was to be amended during trial, is
already beyond arraignment, said amendment cannot be permitted. Thus, the trial prosecutor
cannot amend the information.
No. The prosecutor may not amend the Information to Parricide. As provided in the rules,
amendments, formal or substantial, may be allowed, without leave of court, before the accused
enters his plea. After arraignment, amendment, with leave of court, will be allowed, provided that
the rights of the accused will not be jeopardized. In the present case, amendment in the
information, upon receipt of the marriage certificate, changing the accusation from homicide to
parricide is substantial. This should only be made before trial. Since the certificate, was adduced
during trial, or after after the accused entered his plea, it can no longer be used to amend the
accusation in the information from homicide to parricide.
No. Substantial amendment of the complaint or information is not allowed after arraignment
pursuant to Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The change in the designation of the offense charged
from homicide to parricide, which is a graver offense, is a substantial one. Thus, it cannot be
done after arraignment or, as in the instant case, during trial. However, the prosecutor may
withdraw the information charging Peter of homicide and file another information designating the
offense charged as parricide.
No. The prosecutor cannot amend the information. According to Section 14, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, amendment as to the form can only be done not the
substance. In this case, what the prosecutor attempts to amend is its substance. Moreover, the
marriage certificate is not alleged in the information. Doing such will violate Peter's constitutional
right to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the offense charged against
him.
Yes. Amendment in the complaint or information, either in form or in substance, may be done
without leave of court, before arraignment and when it can be done without causing prejudice to
the rights of the accused. However, amendment in the complaint or information before
arraignment which downgrades the nature of the offense charged or excludes any of the accused
in the complaint or information may be done upon motion by the prosecutor with notice to the
offended party and with leave of court. Here, the amendment in the information may made by the
prosecutor without leave of court provided it is done before Peter enters his plea. Such
amendment is allowed since it would not cause prejudice to the rights of Peter, merely adding
specific information that would specifically describe the offense charged.
Yes. The relationship between Peter and Lani as husband and wife is substantial information that
changes the nature of the crime from homicide to parricide and can be considered as a
circumstance than can affect the penalty imposed on the accused peter if found guilty. According
to the rules on Criminal procedure , a substantial change in the information such as this where
the crime alleged in the complaint is different from the crime that was committed, a motion for a
leave of court to amend the information should be filed or alternatively a motion to dismiss the
case and file for another arraignment and enter a new plea.
No. The prosecutor cannot anymore amend the information. Under the rules on criminal
procedures, amendments after the accused have been arraigned is allowed only if such
amendment is a formal and not a substantial amendment. In this case, the amendment of the
information from homicide to parricide constitutes substantial amendment. It will prejudice and
violates the rights of the accused therefore it is not allowed.
Yes, the prosecutor may amend the information from Homicide to Parricide. The element of
relationship can be added in the information. All the allegations in the body of the information
would still be the same. The added information that the accused is Lani's spouse will not change
the manner the crime was committed. The information such as when it was committed, and how it
was committed would still be the same. Therefore, the amendment of such should be allowed. It
would be impractical to set another hearing for a case having the same facts, same evidences
and same witnesses.
No, the prosecutor may not amend the information during trial. The amendment involved in this
present case is a substantial amendment and is hence prohibited under Section 14, Rule 110 of
the Rule of Court when it is done after arraignment and during trial. Further, such kind of
amendment which involves substitution of offense is prejudicial to the accused and is hence
violative of the right of the accused to due process and his right to be informed of the offense
charged against him. In accordance to the Sections 1, 8 and 14, Rule 110 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, the Information must contain all the facts and circumstances, including the
acts and omissions and the elements of the crimes charged against the accused. Amendment as
to form and substance can only be done without leave of court before the arraignment. Formal
arraignment is only allowed after trial but with leave of court. No Substantial amendment can be
done after arraignment. As in this present case, since the element of relationship being essential
to the crime of parricide was not alleged in the information, the amendment should not be allowed
enough to prosecute Peter for the crime of parricide.
The general rule is that substantial amendment can only be made prior to the accused entering
his plea. However, this is subject to exemptions. The prosecutor may amend the Information to
Parricide provided that he accomplish the following: (1) The Prosecutor must move for leave of
court to amend the information, (2) The court must be furnished two copies of the motion and the
parties must be furnished copies of the motion, (3) There must be no opposition on the part of the
defense or the defense must not adversely comment upon the motion. (4) Such amendment will
not gravely prejudice the accused.
Yes, the prosecutor may amend the Information to parricide. Jurisprudence provides that the
change of the offense charged is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment.
The only change made was the caption of the case and the opening paragraph or the preamble
of the Information. There was no change in the recital of the case constituting the offense
charged and the determination of the jurisdiction of the court. In the case at bar, only the caption
or title of the case was amended and not the essential facts therein. Therefore, the prosecutor
may validly amend the Information from Homicide to Parricide.
Yes, provided a leave of court is submitted. According to the Rules of Court on Criminal
Procedure, a substantial amendment may be made when a leave of court is made. There is a
substantial amendment when the change in the complaint shall directly affect the accused, such
as the increase or decrease in the penalty that shall be meted to the accused should he be found
guilty.
No, the prosecutor may not amend the information to parricide for substitution is more
appropriate. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, substitution may be made when the offense
charged is different from the offense proved during trial, especially if the second offense is the
same as the first and the evidence applies to the second, among others. This finds application in
the instant case since what is involved is not mere description for it to be amended.
No, the prosecutor cannot amend the information to Parricide. Under rule 110, sec. 14, it is stated
that after the plea and during the trial, only formal amendments can be done with leave of court,
thus, the amendment that the prosecutor wants to changed constitutes substantial changed,
which is under rule 110, sec 14. is prohibited. the proper procedure for the information to be
amended is for the RTC to dismiss the case, and order to file a new information, in the case, the
parricide.
No. The prosecutor can no longer amend the information as it will prejudice Peter given that the
crime of Parricide has a higher penalty over Homicide and such amendment constitutes
substantial amendment. Pursuant to the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a complaint or information
may be amended as to its form (formal amendment) or substance (substantial amendment)
without leave of court prior to entering the plea of the accused or prior to arraignment. On the
other hand, if the amendment will result to an offense with a lower or reduced penalty, or will
exclude some of the accused from the information, the prosecutor can only proceed with leave of
court and notice to the parties. However, if the case already proceeded to trial, only formal
amendment can be made with leave of court. Substantial amendments are no longer allowed
after the accused already entered his plea or after arraignment. The marriage certificate of Peter
and Lani will change the crime being punished from homicide to parricide, the latter having higher
criminal penalty, the same will constitute substantial amendment to the information previously
submitted. As such, since the inclusion of the marriage certificate of Peter and Lani will result to a
substantial amendment to the information previously filed before the court, the same should not
be allowed.
No, the prosecutor cannot amend the Information to Parricide since it's a substantial amendment.
Under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a substantial amendment cannot
be done after arraignment. In the given case, the case was already in trial, which is why applying
the above-mentioned provision, the prosecutor can no longer amend the Information to Homicide.
No, the prosecutor may not amend the Information to Parricide. Under Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court, substantial amendments are not allowed after the accused has pleaded to the offense.
Substantial amendments include those that will affect the defenses of the accused such as when
aggravating circumstances are included. Such are not allowed as the accused has the
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusations against him. In
this case, the accused has already pleaded for the offense of homicide as the case is already in
trial. Amending the information to parricide means that the accused has to present new evidence,
so it will be a substantial amendment. Hence, the prosecutor may not amend the Information.
 11. You are the defense counsel of Nancy who has been charged under RA 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. While Nancy has posted
bail, she has yet to be arraigned. Nancy revealed to you that she has not been
investigated for any offense and it was only when police officers showed up at her
residence with a warrant of arrest that she learned of the pending case against her.
Under Section 6, Rule 112, when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant
involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided
an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. She wonders why
she has been charged before the Sandiganbayan when she is not in government
service. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, what are the remedies available to
Nancy?

Under the Rules in Criminal Procedure, the following are the remedies available to Nancy, viz: 1.
She may file a motion to ask for a preliminary investigation before the prosecutor within 5 days
upon learning of the filing of the information against her; 2. If the resolution of the prosecutor is
unfavorable, she may raise a motion for reconsideration before the prosecution's office or to the
Secretary of Justice; 3. She may file an administrative case or criminal case or prevericacion
against the prosecutor in view of the filing of the information without conducting preliminary
investigation as required by the rules; and 4. She may file a civil action for any damages.
Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Nancy may file before the court a motion for
reinvestigation or to move for the dismissal of the information and for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter filed. According to jurisprudence, a person may ask for dismissal of the information
filed against him if he does not yet enter a plea. He may as well submit that the Sandiganbayan
does not have jurisdiction over the case since she is not a government employee.
Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the remedies available for Nancy is to file a
motion for preliminary investigation. Under the same law, the instances when a person may be
lawfully arrested without warrant are the following; (1) In cases of in flagrante delicto (2) Hot
pursuit where the person has a well-founded belief that the crime is about to be committed or in
the act of being committed or has been committed. In the case at bar, the complaint or
information does not state that any of the following instances is present to arrest the accused
without a valid warrant. Therefore, inquest is not proper in this case at bar but they should
proceed with the preliminary investigation under Section 1 of Rule 112.
Nancy may file a motion to quash the complaint or information. Under the law, lack of jurisdiction
is a ground to quash the complaint or information provided it is raised before the accused enters
his plea and the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused. In the present case,
Nancy may quash the complaint or information since she has not yet been arraigned and the
court already acquired jurisdiction over her when she filed an application for bail. Thus, Nancy
may file a motion to quash the complaint or information.
Nancy could file a motion for the conduct of preliminary investigation and the quashal or the recall
of warrant of arrest and also she can additionally pray to suspend the arraignment. Under Section
6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when a person lawfully arrested without
a warrant involving an offense that requires preliminary investigation, an accused may ask for
preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense within five (5)
days from the time he learns of the filing of the information.
Under the rules on Criminal Procedure, Nancy may file a request for preliminary investigation
within five (5) days after she learned of the arrest. Otherwise, failure to do so would constitute a
waiver on her behalf of the benefit of preliminary investigation.
Nancy can move for the recall of the warrant of arrest. Under the Rules of Court, Nancy can
question, within five (5) days from the issuance, why such warrant exists. Since she was not
aware as to the issuance of such, she should ask within five days from the prosecutor. Also, I
would tell her to move for the recall of the bail. Since she was not yet informed of the charges
against her nor was she even aware if there were any offense committed by her. In this case, the
right of Nancy to be informed was not respected. She should file for the recall of both the warrant
of arrest and the issuance of bail before she was arraigned.
Since Nancy has yet to be arraigned, she could still ask for the reinvestigation of the case as she
was not aware that a case was instigated against her, thus, she was not given the due process or
proper recourse to defend herself on the prosecution level. If there would be a reinvestigation,
she could still file her answer to the complaint and there could be a chance that the case would
not go into trial due to lack of probable cause. Also, said information can be quash as the
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the said case. Since Nancy is not in the government
service or in any way accomplice or accessory to a person charged under RA 3019, she can set
up the defense that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over her person.
Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the following are the remedies available to Nancy: a.) file
a motion for investigation; b.) if denied, file a motion for reinvestigation; c.) if dismissed, file a
petition for certiorari or prohibition.
As a defense counsel of Nancy, I will file a motion for reinvestigation before the court. Under the
motion for reinvestigation, the accused will be reinvestigated by the prosecutor to review the
presence of the probable cause or to very if there is a sufficient ground to engender the
reasonable belief that the crime has been committed and the accused may be guilty thereof to be
held trial under the court. In this case, probable cause may not be present as Nancy is alleged
not under the government service. Thus, motion for reinvestigation is a remedy available to
Nancy.
The remedy available to Nancy is for her to file a motion for reinvestigation. Violation of the RA
3019 before the Sandiganbayan must be filed with the prosecutor with the approval of the
Ombudsman or his deputy before an inquest must be made, and the violation of RA 3019
requires the conduct of Preliminary Investigation to determine whether there is a well founded
belief that the person committed the crime. In this case, the proper procedure for the enforcement
of the violation of RA 3019 was not complied and provided that Nancy was not in government
service the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction of her case as it was not alleged that she
acted in conspiracy with public officials. Nancy should file a motion for dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Nancy may avail herself of the following remedies: a)
She may file before the Court a motion for reconsideration, asking the Court to reinvestigate her
involvement in the case; or b) she may file an action for certiorari before the proper court, alleging
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion on the part of
Sandiganbayan, for the failure of the latter to furnish Nancy a copy of the complaint charging her
of the offense stated herein and giving her a chance to submit her answer or counterclaims.
The remedies available to Nancy are: Motion for Bill of Particulars, in order to determine if the
complaint or information is sufficient to enter a plea. Motion to Quash the Complaint or
Information as it appears that the cause of her arrest comes from information which is filled with
mistakes. Motion for Reinvestigation as she was not afforded a preliminary investigation and that
she only knew of her offense when the police showed up at her residence with a warrant. She
can also file a motion questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as, she mentioned that
she is not in government service.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Nancy can file a Motion for Reinvestigation. A Motion for
Reinvestigation can be availed of by the accused if there was not Preliminary Investigation
accrued, or when the accused felt that Preliminary investigation was not sufficient to determine
probable cause. Further, offenses charged before the Sandiganbayan, are only those committed
by public and government officers in relation to there government and public functions, or when
the accused is a co-conspirator with the public officer. Violation of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) requires Preliminary Investigation before the office of the Ombudsman.
Since Nancy had not been investigated, and was not given the change to present her defense of
the offense charged, and further not a government employee, she may file a Motion for
Reinvestigation and later ask for the dismissal of the complaint, if we found out that there was no
probable cause for such warrant.
Under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Nancy may file a motion for
reinvestigation before the proper court, within five (5) days from the time she learned that a
complaint or information has been filed against her, for the conduct of preliminary investigation.
The same Rule also provides that such preliminary investigation must be completed within fifteen
(15) days from its inception. Moreover, Nancy may file a motion for the withdrawal of the warrant
of arrest issued against her.
Nancy may file a motion for reinvestigation and waive Article 125 of the Revised penal Code
since she still hasn't plead yet to the charge and file a motion for redetermination of probable
cause. She can also raise via certiorari and prohibition to prevent trial.
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, before filing the complaint or information, a
person arrested may request for a preliminary investigation but she must first sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the presence of her counsel.
Notwithstanding the waiver, she may apply for bail. Here, Nancy may request for a preliminary
investigation to be conducted, signing first a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code in the presence of her counsel.
The remedies available to Nancy are to Waive her rights under article 125 so that she may be
able to request for a new preliminary investigation while she is out on bail to determine whether
or not probable cause exists. Nancy, needs to prove that she is not a co principal or accomplice
or accessory to to a crime committed by a public official. Nancy if there is no well founded belief
that nancy was in conspiracy with a public official covered by the jurisdiction of Sandigan Bayan,
her remedy is to file for a motion to quash the case based on lack of jurisdiction over her person.
The remedies available to Nancy are as follows; a. File a motion for reinvestigation in the conduct
of preliminary investigation before the Sandiganbayan and and ask for another preliminary
investigation to be conducted by the prosecutor ; b. File a motion to quash the information on the
ground of improper jurisdiction. Since Nancy is not a government employee, the information
should be filed before the RTC and not in the Sandiganbayan.
Nancy can file for a Motion for Reinvestigation. Upon the receipt of the subpoena, she can file a
counter-affidavit with the supporting documents and evidences. When She receives the
subpoena, she can examine the evidences, the complaint and the statement of the witnesses
against her. She can checked the documents sent to her. Also, she can file for a Motion to
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Under Section 6 (now section 7), Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, when a person is
lawfully arrested without warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation,
she may ask for the conduct of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation for her to adduce
evidence in her defense, within five (5) days upon learning of such filing with Sandiganbayan.
Further, through her counsel, she may ask for the suspension of arraignment wherein she may
need to execute a waiver for Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Thereafter, a motion to bail
may be filed for her temporary release from detention.
I would file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. As
stated in the facts, Nancy is not a Government employee. The Sandiganbayan can only subject
private persons to trial if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with a public officer with the Salary
Grade 27 or those public officers specifically enumerated in the Sandiganbayan law such as:
Governors, Vice Governors, Mayors, Vice mayors, Sangunian Panlalawigan & Sangunian Bayan
members, City Treasurers, City Engineers, City Accountants, CEOs. Presidents, Trustees, Board
of Directors, Managers of GOCCS and Army & Air force Colonels or Navy Captains.
As the defense counsel of Nancy, the remedies available to her are: (1) She may file an
information which is an accusation in writing subscribed by the prosecutor and filed in the proper
court. (2) As to the jurisdiction over the case, the Sandiganbayan does not have the power to
exercise jurisdiction thereof. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan shall be exercised in all
criminal cases of public officers or employees that are classified as Grade 27 or higher. (3) Lastly,
she may, within five days from the time she learns the filing of the offense, ask for a preliminary
investigation from the proper court with the same right to adduce evidence in her defense.
Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Nancy may file for a Motion for Reinvestigation. A review
of the factual incidents, documents attached, and affidavits must be reviewed in order to
determine her degree of participation of the alleged offense.
The Rules on Criminal Procedure vests on Nancy the remedy to file a motion for reinvestigation.
Nancy has 5 days from the date she learned of the case against her to file said motion.
Otherwise, she will be deemed to have waived her right to preliminary investigation.
Under the rules of criminal procedure, Nancy's remedy is to file a preliminary re-investigation.
Under rule 112 sec. 7, the person already in the jurisdiction of the court can file a preliminary re-
investigation of the information filed against her, under the said rules, it is her right to file the re-
investigation of the information filed against her, subject to the courts approval, when approved,
the court will send back the information to the office of the prosecutor, following sec. 3(a) of Rule
112. Therefore, under rule 112 sec. 7, Nancy can file for preliminary re-investigation.
Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the following remedies are available to Nancy: 1. File a
Motion for Reinvestigation before the Court that issued the warrant of arrest against Nancy in
order for the court to remand the matter back to the prosecutor; 2. File a Motion to Quash the
Information on that there is no sufficient evidence to determine probable cause and the
subsequent issuance of a warrant of arrest; or 3. File a Motion to Dismiss the case on the basis
that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, the accused not
being a public official or employee.
Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the remedy available to Nancy is that she can file a
motion to quash on the ground that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over her since she is not
in the government service. Moreover, she can also ask for a preliminary investigation within 5
days from the time she learns of the filing of the case in court with the right to adduce evidence in
her defense. This is in relation to Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Nancy can file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
as the Sandiganbayan only has jurisdiction over government officers and those who conspire with
them. In this case, Nancy is does not work for the government, nor was it alleged that she is in
conspiracy. Another possible remedy of Nancy under Rule 112 is to file a motion for
reinvestigation as she was not caught in flagrante, and there was no preliminary investigation,
which she is entitled to in this case. Such remedy would not affect her bail.

12. May the offended party intervene in a criminal action? Explain.

Yes, an offended party, by counsel, may intervene in a criminal action to prosecute a claim over
civil liability under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor. The law recognizes that in
any act or omission causing injury to persons either through delict, quasi-delict, contracts or
quasi-contracts, the offended party may claim damages. In criminal action, the prosecutor is
focused in prosecuting the commission of the crime. In order to protect civil liability, the offended
party may intervene and present proof of its claim which may not be available before the
prosecutor. Hence, the offended party, by counsel may intervene to go after his claim over civil
liability
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action. Jurisprudence provides that an
offended party may intervene in instances such as by filing an independent civil action and when
the prosecutor in the case acted with grave of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction that may result to the miscarriage of justice.
Yes. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, offended party may intervene in the criminal action
in the following instances; (1) In cases of concubinage (2) Acts of lasciviousness and seduction.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in the criminal action provided that the civil action arising
from the criminal act or omission is also instituted. The Rules of court provides that, where a civil
action for the recovery of civil liability is filed in a criminal action, the offended party may
intervene in the prosecution of the offense. The law is clear that the offended party may intervene
in the criminal action.
No. The offended party cannot intervene in criminal action since it is the State who is truly the
offended party and any violation in criminal cases was committed against the State.
The offended party may intervene in a criminal action when the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the institution of a special civil action, or institutes the civil action prior to the
filing of criminal action.
In certain cases, an offended party can intervene in a criminal action. This happens when there is
a civil liability arising from the criminal action. In such case, a motion for intervention can be had
on the ground that the civil aspect of the case. The civil aspect from the case which stems from
the criminal liability of the accused.
Yes, an offended party may intervene in a criminal action. They may hire a private prosecutor
which should be allowed by the state prosecution to institute the criminal action. Such private
prosecutor is still under the mandate of the state prosecutor.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action since the offended party is the one who
is directly affected and aggrieved by the action instituted.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action. Under Rule 111, The general rule is
the offended party cannot intervene in a criminal action. The instances where the offended party
may intervene in a criminal proceeding is upon filing civil actions and claims over the accused.
Yes, an offended party may intervene in a criminal action with the services of a private prosecutor
in relation to the civil aspect attached to the criminal liability.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action. Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court,
an offended party may intervene in a criminal action when the action filed is strictly personal,
such as those cases involving adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, and acts of
lasciviousness, and during the trial the offended party wish to dismiss or terminate the case. In
such cases, the trial may not prosper when the offended party withdraws from the case, because
the rules on criminal procedures expressly states that these cases may only be instituted by the
offended party or because the offended parties are the best witnesses thereto, without them the
case will eventually be dismissed.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action, provided that the intervention is due to
the recovery of civil liability that may arise from the act or omission complained of as an offense.
Yes. The offended party may intervene in a criminal action. Generally, in the institution of a
criminal action, civil liability is also deemed instituted on the crime allegedly committed. However,
one may waive his right, institute a separate civil action, or file prior the the institution of the
criminal action. With regard to the damages, claims, indemnities and other civil obligation arising
from the crime, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action to protect his civil rights.
Yes. In a criminal action, the offended party serves as the witness on the acts or omissions
committed by the accused.
Yes. Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant
to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. The
exception is when the offended party has waived his rights, has reserved it, or has already
instituted the criminal action.
No. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an offended party may intervene, through
his counsel, only in civil actions, but not in criminal actions. This is so because in criminal actions,
it is the State that is the party injured and the complainant merely becomes the primary witness in
the case.
Yes an offended party may intervene in a criminal action at different levels. First, through filing a
complaint at the prosecutor and then by providing an affidavit or sworn statement and other
supporting evidences to the judge or as a witness. An offended party such as an individual or
corporate entity that suffered injuries arising from the crime comitted may also intervene in the
civil aspect and file for damages in cases where the civil action is instituted with the criminal
action and the injury or liability is a direct result of the crime committed such as in BP22.
No. The offended party cannot intervene in a criminal action. The criminal action is under the
control and supervision of the prosecutor in behalf of the state. The state is the one who will
prosecute the accused and the offended party cannot intervene except only as to the civil aspect
of the action.
An offended party can only intervene in a criminal case with respect to the civil aspects of such
case, such as Damages. In a criminal case, the offended party is only a considered as a witness
while the People of the Philippines is considered the offended party. When the offended party
(the person) intervenes in a case, it should only be about the civil aspects of the case. The
offended party could not intervene with regards to the punishment that the accused should be
given.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action provided that it is not prejudicial to the
accused and in accordance to the existing rules and laws.
In general the offended party cannot intervene in the prosecution of a criminal offense. His
participation is only limited to that of a witness for the prosecution by the State, as conducted by
the Fiscal. An intervention of the private complainant can only be done with respect to the civil
aspect of the criminal prosecution, but as to the criminal aspect, the Prosecutor has the
prerogative to run the case or the prosecution as he sees fit.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action. Under the Rules of Court, the
offended party may intervene in a criminal action when there is a civil action to recover civil
liability arising from the offense involving the criminal action.
The offended party may not intervene in a criminal action. According to the Rules of Court in
Criminal Procedure, once the complaint or information has been filed and the proper court has
taken cognizance of the case, the offended party may no longer intervene with the criminal
action. It now lies solely to the courts as to whether they shall dismiss, acquit, or indict the
accused.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action. While a criminal action is filed against
the accused in the name of the State through the people of the Philippines, the law does not
prohibit the offended party from doing the same. This holds true provided he does so before the
accused enters his plea or is convicted.
Yes, the offended party can intervene in a criminal action. Under the rule 112, the offended party
can intervene thru his counsel for the criminal action.
No. An offended party cannot intervene in a criminal action. Offenses or crimes committed are
prosecuted under the name of the People of the Philippines. The State is the interested party for
offenses or crimes committed. The private offended party acts only as a witness of the State
against such offenses or crimes committed by the accused. Hence, an offended party, unlike in a
civil action, cannot intervene in a criminal action.
Yes, an offended party may intervene in a criminal action when he is instituting a civil case for
damages against the accused.
Yes, the offended party may intervene in a criminal action. He can get the services of a private
prosecutor to handle the civil liability which is deemed instituted with the criminal action as
provided in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.

13. What is the exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one
offense?

The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one offense is when
the offense constitutes a complex crime since one offense is necessary to the commission of
another offense such as robbery with homicide or rape with homicide. Here, it necessary that
both offense must be contained in one complaint or information because it deals with the same
facts and events and will require the presentation of same evidence.
In general, a complaint or information must charge only one offense. However, jurisprudence
provides exceptions to the rule such as, when the the law provides that a crime is a complex such
as rape with homicide it must be considered as one offense. Another instance is when the
accused failed to quash the complaint or information before he is arraigned the court shall render
judgment despite the multiplicity of charges in the complaint or information.
Under the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure a complaint or information must charge only one
offense. The rule however, provides for the exception which is laid down by the court. It is when
the offenses charge provides for single penalty such as in robbery with homicide there are two
offenses but there is only single penalty. Hence, charging this offenses in complaint or
information will not constitute duplicitous complaint or information.
The exceptions to the rule where a complaint or information must charge only one offense is in
the presence of special complex crimes, complex crimes or compound crimes as provided in the
Revised Penal Code.
The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one offense is when
there is prejudicial question. The elements of prejudicial question are as follows: 1. The
previously instituted civil action involves similar issue or intimately similar issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action. 2. The resolution of the civil action will determine whether or not the
criminal action will proceed. Moreover. in order that prejudicial question exist the civil action must
precede from the filing of criminal action
As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense. Some of the
exceptions are the following: Complex crimes and those that contain two or more crimes that
have been allowed by the Supreme Court to be filed in a complaint or information due to the
existence of common elements between those crimes and that will not constitute double
jeopardy.
The exception of which is when several offenses can be charged singularly. An example would
be complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. An example would be complex
crimes of Robbery with Homicide. Even if what was alleged in the information were two separate
crimes but the two can be tried as one and the same because such is a complex crime, then it
falls under the exception. Another would be absorption of crimes. There are crimes which have
the same elements and such would be absorbed by another. These are the exceptions to the
rule.
The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must be charge only one offense are
cases with complex or compound crimes. In this case, multiple information need not be filed as
the law already provides for a specific penalty to it. Example would be in a case where a person
fired once and three persons died due to it. in normal parlance, three complaints must be filed as
there are three victims to the said crime, but because the action and intent pertains to only one,
such crime can only be charged under one offense. Also if the law already provides for a penalty
such as estafa thru falsification of documents. The higher crime would be considered in the
institution of the penalty, thus, two separate information need not be filed and only one offense is
considered which would bring a higher penalty.
Under the rules, the exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one
offense is when specifically provided by other laws, such as complex crimes and special complex
crimes.
Under rule 110 of the rules of court, a complaint or Information may charge more the one offense
if the law provides a single penalty upon several offense committed.
The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one offense occurs if it
is provided for by the law violated.
As provided under the Rules on Criminal Procedures, an exception to the general rule that a
complaint or information must charge only one offense is when the law provides for a single
punishment for various acts. In such case, the various acts punishable with a single punishment
may all be reflected or contained in one complaint or information.
The exception to the one-offense rule is if the offenses in the information or complaint constitute
only one similar penalty, or if the offense is complexed with another, or if the offense is absorbed
by one offense, or if the type of offense is a Special Complex Offense.
It is provided by the Rules of Court that a compliant or an information must only charge a single
offense. Exception to this rule is when two or more offenses can can be served in a single
penalty, whether imprisonment or fine.
The exception to the rule under Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
which states that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, is when a statute
provides a single punishment for various offenses, such as in complex crimes.
The exception to the rule is if a complaint of information may charge more than one offense when
the law prescribes a single punishment for multiple offenses such as rape with homicide which is
a special complex crime.
An exception to the duplicity of a complaint or information is when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses.
According to the Rules on Criminal Procedure , the exception to the rule that a complaint or
information must charge only one offense is when the crime committed is complex so that one
could not have been committed without the other such as crimes under special laws where the
elements of each crime should be alleged and proven in the complaint to be able to prove the
existence of the complex crime.
The exception to the rule in case of duplicitous complaint or information is when the crime
committed is a special complex crime under article 48 of the RPC. The charges in the complaint
or information even if it is duplicitous because of the designation of two or more crimes in one
information is still correct.
A complaint or information must charge only one offense except when the facts of another
offense alleged in the information are necessary means for the commission of the crime. There
are times when a certain act or omission constituting a crime is deemed necessary for committing
another crime. Also, when the two different acts constitute a complex crime. For example,
Robbery with Homicide. Another example would be when there is a single act but it resulted to
more than one crime. For example, the act of firing multiple gunshots would be one offense but
when it resulted to the death or injury of several people, another offense would be alleged in the
information.
The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one when it involves
complex crimes as provided in the Revised Penal Code or when it involves several crimes or
offenses but with the one penalty.
The exemption to this rule occurs when it is specifically provided for by law that multiple offenses
could be charged, the examples of these are: (1) Complex crimes: Robbery with Homicide,
Robbery physical injuries, etc. (2) Special complex crimes: Rebellion, Insurrection, Terrorisms,
Piracy.
The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one offense is when
there is a prejudicial question. For a prejudicial question to exist, the elements must be present,
to wit: (1) the previously instituted civil action with the similar or intimately related to the issue
involving the criminal case; and (2) the civil action must recover its civil liability arising from the
offense which involves the issue of the criminal action.
The exception to the rule is that a complaint or information may charge more than one offense
when: 1. the special law provides so; and 2. the offenses are from sperate acts from the same
accused.
The exceptions to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one offense is when
the law provides so. This is especially in the case of (1) delito complejo involving crimes which
use other crimes as means in their commission; (2) delito compuesto involving crimes consisting
of two or more grave or less grave offenses, (3) delito continuado involving crimes arising from a
single criminal intent; (4) absorbed crimes such as rebellion which absorbs the crimes of murder
and homicide; and special complex crimes such as estafa through falsification.
The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must be charge only one offense are the
following: 1.) When the accused has no objection of the of the information filed by the prosecutor,
under rule 50 of the rules of court. accused deemed to waived his right and; 2.) When the crime is
complexed crime.
The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one offense is when
multiple offenses is punished with the same penalty. An example thereof are crimes classified as
special complex crimes (e.g., rape with homicide). In this case, the crime is punished with the
same penalty.
The exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge only one offense is when
the elements of the other crimes are necessary for the resolution of one case. Under the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, a complaint or information, as a general rule must charge only one offense
except in case wherein the resolution of one offense is necessary to determine the resolution of
another offense.
Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, a complaint or information must charge only one offense
except when a single act leads to multiple offenses, such as complex crimes, and compound
crimes.

14. BONUS: WHERE IS THE JURISDICTION?

Jurisdiction is with a judicial body.

The jurisdiction of the case shall be in Metropolitan Trial Court of the City of Mandaluyong, where
the accident happened.
Jurisdiction is conferred by law. It is legally supported under the legal maxim Juri and Dico.
Under the law, Robbery is a continuing offense. The jurisdiction may be at the city or province
where the essential elements has been committed.
MTC
The jurisdiction is everywhere. The court may acquire it on fluvial, terrestrial or even areal
domain.
RTC of Jumanji (?)
The proper court
The Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction on crimes with penalty of imprisonment for less than six
years and one day.
The Jurisdiction is acquired by the court, not by the judge itself.
The RTC will have jurisdiction of the case as the damage amount was equivalent to 500,000
which the RTC has jurisdiction for such.
Jurisdiction is between "the" and "?"
Regional Trial Court
In the Court
Regional Trial Court of Davao City
Jurisdiction is within the courts. It is in the courts where the power and authority to take
cognizance of the offense is vested.
Court of the city or municipality where the offense was committed or any of its essential elements
took place.
Philippine Waters
The jurisdiction is in the MTC of Mandaluyong.
In the exam.
Senate
The jurisdiction for Nancy's case should be with the RTC of her area.
OMBUDSMAN
The jurisdiction is conferred to the courts.
The jurisdiction is with the court.
Under the amended BP129, Cases involving reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property
are in exclusive jurisdiction of MeTC and MTC courts.
"The jurisdiction" is found in the question below only. Explain how the jurisdiction on the following
is determined: a.) territorial jurisdiction b.) jurisdiction over the subject matter c.) jurisdiction over
the person of the accused
In the place where the crime is committed
It depends where the law conferred jurisdiction.