Chapter 1 – Jurisdiction
it has the authority to hear and determine the
I. Requisites
- The requisites before a court an acquired
jurisdiction over criminal cases:
a. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
b. Jurisdiction over the Territory
c. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter vs.
Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
a. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
- It refers to the authority of the court to hear and try
a particular offense and impose the punishment for
it or that the offense is one which the court is, by
law, authorized to take cognizance of.
b. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
- Jurisdiction of the court over the person charged.
- It is acquired through the following:
a. Arrest or Apprehension of the person with or
without a warrant
b. Voluntary Appearance or Submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
A. Jurisdiction over the Territory
1
- A court is bereft with jurisdiction to try an offense
committed outside its limited territory.
- For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in
criminal cases the offense should have been
committed or any of its essential ingredients should
have been taken place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.
- It must enable the court, through the allegations
therein, to determine that the offense was
committed or any of its essential ingredients
occurred at same place within the jurisdiction of the
court. (Sec. 6, Rule 110)
B. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
- It is the authority or power of the court to hear and
determine a case.
- It includes the power to determine whether or not
controversy presented and the right to decide
whether or not the statement of facts that confer
jurisdiction exists, as well as other matter that arise
in the case legitimately before the court.
How Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
Is conferred
1.
- Jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it
affects the very authority of the court to take
cognizance of and render judgment on the action.
- A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no
longer a judgment at all, and cannot be the source of
any right nor the creator of any obligation.
-Allegations in the complaint determine both the
nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court.
- The designation in the caption is not controlling,
for the caption is not an indispensable part of the
complaint.
2.
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal
case cannot be conferred upon the court by the
accused, express waiver or otherwise.
- It cannot be presume or implied but must appear
clearly from the law or it will not be held to exist.
- It cannot be conferred by the agreement of the
parties, or by the court’s acquiescence.
- It cannot be conferred by the erroneous belief of
the court that it has jurisdiction, by the waiver of
objections or by the silence of the parties.
- When the law confers jurisdiction, that conferment
must be clear and cannot be presumed.
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined
1.
- Jurisdiction over the criminal case is determined
by the allegations in the complaint or information.
- The complaint or information must be examined
for purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts
set out therein and the punishment provided by law
for such act fall within the jurisdiction of the court
in which the criminal action if filed.
- In order to determine the jurisdiction of the court
in criminal cases, the complaint or Information must
be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether
or not the facts set out therein and the prescribed
period provided for by law are within the
jurisdiction of the court, and where the said
Information or complaint is filed. It is settled that
the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is
determined by the allegations of the complaint or
Information and not by the findings based on the
evidence of the court after trial.
- Jurisdiction of the court is not determined by the
evidence presented by the parties at the trial.
Ex:
a. The allegation clearly indicate the alleged
commission if the crime of Murder which is under
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Hence, Irrespective of whether the killing was
actually justified or not, the jurisdiction to try the
crime charged is vested upon the RTC by law.
Use of Imposable Penalty
1.
- Jurisdiction is not determined by the penalty
actually imposed after the trial but by the penalty
imposable by law on the offense.
Ex:
a. If the allegations of the information charge the
accused with an offense within the jurisdiction of
the RTC because the imposable penalty exceed 6
years, that court has jurisdiction even if the penalty
imposed by the said court, after trial is
imprisonment of less than 6 years.
Statute applicable to a criminal action
1.
- It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter
jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is
properly measured by the law in effect at the time of
the commencement or institution of a criminal
action, rather than by the law in effect at the time of
the commission of the offense charged.
Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction or
Continuing Jurisdiction
1.
- The jurisdiction of the court is referred to as
“continuing” in view of the general principle that
once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that
jurisdiction continues until the court has done all
that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
Ex:
a. The RTC has acquired jurisdiction of a frustrated
homicide case, but the evidence offered during the
trial shows the commission of an offense of less
serious physical injuries which is cognizable by the
MTC if initially filed.
Hence, applying the principle of adherence, the
RTC does not lose its jurisdiction over the offense
charged and may impose the proper penalty for the
offense proved.
2.
- Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be
ousted from the case by any subsequent events, such
as a new legislation placing such proceedings under
the jurisdiction of another tribunal. The only
recognized exceptions to the rule, which find no
application in the case at bar, arise when:
(1) there is an express provision in the statute, or
(2) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions
pending before its enactment.
Objections on Jurisdictional Ground
General Rule:
- An objection based on the ground that the court
lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised or considered “Motu Proporio” by the court
at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
Hence, the question of jurisdiction may be
cognizable even if raised for the first time on
appeal.
Exception:
- Doctrine of Estoppel laid down in Tijam Case. It
states that the right to raise the issue of jurisdiction
has its limitations. A party after voluntary
submitting a cause and encountering ad adverse
decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to
question the jurisdiction or power of the court.
C. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
(Bar 2008)
- Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is
acquired upon either his apprehension, with or
without warrant, or his submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
Voluntary Submission to the Jurisdiction of the
Court; Affirmative Relief
- One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to
have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief
constitutes voluntary appearance, and the
consequent jurisdiction of one's person to the
jurisdiction of the court.
Thus, by filing several motions before the RTC
seeking the dismissal of the criminal case,
respondent voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction
of the court.
- The voluntary submission of the accused to the
jurisdiction, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction
over his person, is accomplished either by his
pleading to the merits such as by filing a motion to
quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of
the court's jurisdiction
- If the accused voluntary appears in the court for
arraignment, then it is tantamount to voluntary
appearance.
- If the accused fails to appear during the trial and
escapes from the custody of law, jurisdiction is not
lost.
- Voluntary Submission may be effected through the
following:
a. When a person enters into a counsel-assisted plea
and actively participates in the trial and presents
evidence for defense.
Hence, the accused is deemed to have waived his
constitutional protection against illegal arrest.
b. Filing a motion for determination of probable
cause, the court acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused
Objecting to the Jurisdiction of the Court over
the Person of the Accused
1.
- Not all acts seeking affirmative relief constitute a
voluntary appearance or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
- Making a special appearance in court to question
the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
accused is not voluntary appearance as when, in a
criminal case, a motion to quash is filed precisely
on the ground.
- No submission to the jurisdiction of the court
when the accused files a motion to quash the
warrant of arrest because the very legality of the
court process forcing the submission of the person
of the accused that is the very issue in a motion to
quash the information or the warrant of arrest.
2.
- Jurisprudence dictates that "where the appearance
is by motion for the purpose of objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person, it must be
for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to
said jurisdiction. If the appearance is for any other
purpose, the defendant is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Such an
appearance gives the court jurisdiction over the
person.
Custody of Law v. Jurisdiction over the Person;
Objecting to the Legality of the Arrest
1.
- According the SC the distinction of the two is
stated in Miranda v. Tuliao which states that:
“Custody of the law is required before the court can
act upon the application for bail, but is not required
for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the
defendant where the mere application therefor
constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest
or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or
voluntary appearance.
One can be under the custody of the law but not yet
subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of
a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash
the warrant.
On the other hand, one can be subject to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not
be in the custody of the law, such as when an
accused escapes custody after his trial has
commenced.
Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on
the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will
and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the
will of the law. Custody of the law is literally
custody over the body of the accused. It includes,
but is not limited to, detention.”
- Rule 114, Section 26: Bail not a bar to objections
on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation. — An application for or admission to
bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant
issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or
questioning the absence of a preliminary
investigation of the charge against him, provided
that he raises them before entering his plea. The
court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable
but not later than the start of the trial of the case. (n)
D. Injunction To Restrain Criminal Prosecution
General Rule:
- Injunction cannot be used to thwart criminal
prosecution because investigating criminal acts and
prosecution their perpetrators have always been in
the interest of the public. It applies to either a
preliminary or final injunction.
Exceptions:
(1) when the injunction is necessary to afford
adequate protection to the constitutional rights of
the accused;
(2) when it is necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
(3) when there is a prejudicial question which is
subjudice;
(4) when the acts of the officer are without or in
excess of authority;
(5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation;
(6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the
offense; (8) where it is a case of persecution rather
than prosecution;
(9) where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
(10) when there is clearly no prima facie case
against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied
E. Mandamus to Compel Prosecution (Bar 1999)
1.
- Mandamus is a remedial measure for parties
aggrieved which shall be issued when "any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station."
- The writ of mandamus is not available to control
discretion. Neither may it be issued to compel the
exercise of discretion.
- Truly, it is a matter of discretion on the part of the
prosecutor to determine which persons appear
responsible for the commission of a crime.
However, the moment he finds one to be so liable, it
becomes his inescapable duty to charge him
therewith and to prosecute him for the same. In such
a situation, the rule loses its discretionary character
and becomes mandatory
Ex:
a. If despite the sufficiency of the evidence before
the prosecutor, he refuses to file the corresponding
information against the person responsible, he
abuses his discretion. His act is tantamount to a
deliberate refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
The Secretary of Justice, on the other hand, would
gravely abuse his discretion when, despite the
existence of sufficient evidence for the crime as
acknowledged by the investigating prosecutor, he
completely ignored the latter's finding and
proceeded with the questioned resolution anchored
on purely evidentiary matters in utter disregard of
the concept of probable cause. To be sure, findings
of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review
unless shown to have been made with grave abuse
but a case like this calls for the application of an
exception.
II. Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts
A. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and
Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC)
- Except in cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and
of the Sandiganbayan, the MTC shall exercise the
following criminal jurisdiction:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations
of city or municipal ordinances committed within
their respective territorial jurisdiction (Batas
Pambansa Big. 129, Section 3211)
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of fine, and
regardless of other imposable or accessory
penalties, including the civil liability arising from
such offenses irrespective of kind, nature, value or
amount (B.P. 129, Sec. 32[2]; R.A. 7691);
3. Jurisdiction of the MTC is qualified by the phrase
"Except in cases falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and of the
Sandiganbayan. This indicates that the MTC does
not at all times have jurisdiction over offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years if jurisdiction is vested by law either in the
RTC or Sandiganbayan.
Note:
- Based on Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code,
the MTC has jurisdiction over offenses punishable
by up to the maximum of prision correccional
which shall not exceed six (6) years.
-There are however, offenses which even if
punishable by prision correccional are not
cognizable by the MTC because of an express
provision of law like libel as defined in Article 355
of the Revised Penal Code. Under this provision,
libel by means of writings or similar means shall be
punishable by prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods or a fine ranging from P200 to
P6,000 pesos or both. Nevertheless, under Article
360 of the Revised Penal Code, the criminal action
as well as the civil action for such offense shall be
filed simultaneously or separately with the CFI
(now RTC).
- Some forms of direct bribery under Article 210 of
the Revised Penal Code which are punishable by
prision correccional in its medium period, are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of P.D. 1606
as amended. Indirect bribery, a felony punishable by
prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods under Article 211 of the Revised Penal
Code are likewise cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of P.D. 1606 as amended.
4. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses
involving damage to property through criminal
negligence (B.P. 129, Sec. 32[2]; RA. 7691);
5. Violations of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
(A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC, March 25, 2003);
6. Summary procedure in certain cases.
7. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications for
bail in criminal cases in the absence of all RTC
judges in a province or city. (B.P. 129 [Sec. 35])
Summary Procedure in Criminal Cases
1.
- The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have
jurisdiction over cases falling under summary
procedure committed within their jurisdiction
(Sec.1, Rules on Summary Procedure)
2.
- The following cases are subject to summary
procedure:
a. Violation of Traffic Laws, Rules, and Regulations
b. Violation of the Rental Law
c. B.P. 22 cases
d. Violation of Municipal or City Ordinances
e. All other criminal cases where the penalty
prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine
not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of
other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise,
or of the civil liability arising therefrom

f. Offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where
the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00)
3.
Sec. 11. How commenced — The filing of
criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule
shall be either by complaint or by information:
Provided, however, that in Metropolitan Manila and
in Chartered Cities. such cases shall be commenced
only by information, except when the offense
cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
The complaint or information shall be accompanied
by the affidavits of the compliant and of his
witnesses in such number of copies as there are
accused plus two (2) copies for the court's files.If
this requirement is not complied with within five (5)
days from date of filing, the care may be dismissed.
4.
Sec. 13. Arraignment and trial. — Should the
court, upon a consideration of the complaint or
information and the affidavits submitted by both
parties, find no cause or ground to hold the accused
for trial, it shall order the dismissal of the case;
otherwise, the court shall set the case for
arraignment and trial.
If the accused is in custody for the crime charged,
he shall be immediately arraigned and if he enters a
plea of guilty, he shall forthwith be sentenced.
5.
Sec. 14. Preliminary conference. — Before
conducting the trial, the court shall call the parties
to a preliminary conference during which the
following may be done:
a. Entering into aa stipulation of facts may be
entered into
b. Considering the propriety of allowing the accused
to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be
considered,
c. Taking up such other matters to clarify the issues
and to ensure a speedy disposition of the case.
6.
- If the accused refuses to stipulate or fails to do so,
such refusal or failure shall not prejudice the
accused.
- Any admission of the accused made during the
preliminary conference must be reduced to writing
and signed by the accused and his counsel. If this
requirement is not met, such admission shall not be
used against him. (Sec. 14)
7.
-During the trial, an actual direct examination of the
witnesses is not required because the affidavits
submitted by the parties shall constitute their direct
testimonies. The witnesses, however, may be
subjected to cross-examination, redirect or re-cross
examination.
Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall
not be considered as a competent evidence for the
party presenting the affidavit. However, the adverse
party may utilize the same for any admissible
purpose. (Sec. 15)
8.
Sec. 16. Arrest of accused — The court shall not
order the arrest of the accused except for failure to
appear whenever required. Release of the person
arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance
by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.
9.
Sec. 17. Judgment. — Where a trial has been
conducted, the court shall promulgate the judgment
not later than thirty (30) days after the termination
of trial.
10.
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. —
The following pleadings, motions or petitions shall
not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
complaint or information except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
failure to comply with the preceding section;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for opening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits or any other paper
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third party complaints;
(l) Interventions. (Bar 2004)
B. Criminal Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court
(RTC) (B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7691)
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal
cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body, except those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan which shall be exclusively taken
cognizance of by the latter
2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction which may be
enforced in any part of their respective regions.
3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction
4. Special jurisdiction to handle exclusively
criminal cases as designated by the Supreme Court
5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific
laws such as:
(a) Jurisdiction over civil and criminal aspects of
Written defamation (Art. 360, Revised Penal Code);
(b) Jurisdiction of designated courts over cases in
violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002 {RA. No. 9165) as provided under Sec.
90 thereof;
(c) Violations of intellectual property rights [A.M.
No. 03-03-03-SC 2003-06-17, Effective July 1,
2003 implementing the Intellectual Property Code
of the Philippines [R A. 8293]).
(c) Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases. — The
Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction to try
all cases on money laundering. Those committed by
public officers and private persons who are in
conspiracy with such public officers shall be under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 5, RA.
9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of2001).
C. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
(PD1606, RA. 7975 and RA. 8249)
1. Jurisprudence dictates that the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. 1606 as amended and
not by R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act as amended.
2. The applicable law provides:
Section 4. Jurisdiction — The Sandiganbayan shall
exercise original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corruption Practices Act, and Republic Act No.
1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II
of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of
the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of
the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade "27" and higher of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members
of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsody city treasurer, assessors,
engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains, and all officers of higher rank;
(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while
occupying the position of provincial director and
those holding the rank of senior superintendent or
higher;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or
foundations (Note: See People v. Morales, G.R. No.
166355, May 30,2011).
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade "27" and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to
the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of
the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as
Grade "27" and higher under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the
public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection "a" of this section in relation to their
office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986.
The Sandiganbayan also exercises civil jurisdiction
(Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551).
Note:
- In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade '27' or
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No.
6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned
above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall
be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and
municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be,
pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided
in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether
in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or
of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
- The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the
writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over
petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto,
arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may
be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction
over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the
Supreme Court. (Bar 2009, 2012)
- The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Big.
129, as well as the implementing rules that the
Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter
promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review
to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and
petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan.
In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from
the Sandiganbayan to the Su- preme Court, the
Office of the Ombudsman through its special
prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Phil-
ippines except in cases filed pursuant to Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
"In case private individuals are charged as co-prin-
cipals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees, including those employed in
government- owned or controlled corporations, they
shall be tried jointly with said public officers and
employees in the proper courts which shall exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over them."
- Prior to R.A. 8249, the law which governed the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was R.A. 7975
amending P.D. 1606.
R.A. 7975 conferred jurisdiction on the
Sandiganbayan over certain specified offenses
"where one or more of the principal accused" are
officials occupying the positions enumerated in the
law. A significant amendment introduced by R.A.
8249 was the removal of the word principal before
the word accused thus transforming the phrase to
read: "where one or more of the accused" (Sec.
4[a]ofP.D. 1606 as amended).
Thus, as the law is now written, one of the accused
no longer has to be a principal accused and may
simply be an accomplice or an accessory. Also, not
all of the accused need be those officials mentioned
in the said law. It is sufficient that at least one of
them be an official occupying any of the positions
enumerated
Offenses subject to the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan (Bar 1997)
1. The phraseology of the governing law discloses
that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is not
confined to violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Specifically, the following offenses
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (Section 4[a] of Presidential Decree
1606 as amended).
b. Violations of Republic Act No. 1379 or otherwise
known as the Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of
the State Any Property Found to Have Been
Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or
Employee (Sec. 4[a] of P.D. 1606 as amended).
c. Violations of Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code. (Sec. 4[a]
ofP.D. 1606 as amended)These offenses refer to
the law on bribery in all its forms including
corruption of public officers. (Articles 210-212,
Revised Penal Code)
d. Other offenses or felonies aside from the above,
whether simple or complexed, with other crimes,
committed by public officials mentioned in letter
"a" of Sec. 4 in relation to their office (Please refer
to the enumeration of these officials earlier made
under the topic 'Criminal jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan' above).
Note:
The terms "offenses or felonies" in letter "d" above
are so broad in meaning and are not restricted to the
laws earlier mentioned. These offenses however,
must be those committed by officials *in relation to
their office."
Ex:
1. In Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059,
January 22, 2008, the Court declared in no uncertain
terms, that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
felonies committed by public officials in relation to
their office. The court further held that estafa is one
of those felonies and the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction if:
(a) the offense is committed by a public official or
an employee mentioned in Sec. 4, paragraph "a;"
and
(b) the offense is committed in relation to his office.
2. The accused argues that the crime of falsification
as defined under Articles 171 and 172 of the RPC is
not within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. He
also points out that nowhere under Sec. 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1606, R.A. 3019, R.A.
1379, or in Title VII, Book II of the RPC is
"falsification of official document" mentioned. The
Court struck down the argument and ruled that
falsification of public document under the RPC is
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
(Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161455,
May 20, 2008)
e. Civil and criminal offenses filed pursuant to and
in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,14
and 14-A issued in 1986 (Sec. 4[c] P.D. 1606 as
amended). These executive orders refer to orders on
sequestration cases.
Note:
- Section 2 of EO 1 expressly granted the authority
of the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth covered
President Marcos’ immediate family, relatives,
subordinates and close associates, without
distinction as to their private or public status.
Officials and employees with a salary grade of
"27" or higher
1. Should one or more of the officials charged have
a salary grade of "27" or higher for the
Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over the case?
It is submitted that the query be answered in the
negative. The law mentions salary grade "27" only
in relation to the following officials:
(a) Officials of the executive branch, occupying the
position of regional director and higher (Section
4[a][l]);
(b) Members of Congress or officials thereof
(Section 4[a][2J); and
(c) All other national and local officials (Section
4[a][5]). These officials are those who are not
enumerated in letters "a" to "g" of Sec. 4(a)(1).
The salary grade of "27" has no reference for
example to provincial governors, vice governors or
members of the sang- guniang panlalawigan,
sangguniang panlunsod, directors or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, city
mayors, vice mayors, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers, trustees of state universities, and other
officials enumerated in Section 4(a) (l)from letters
"a" to "g" of Presidential Decree 1606 as amended.
Those enumerated are subject to the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan regardless of salary grade.
(Inding v. Sandiganbayan, 434 SCRA 388)
- Instructive is the ruling of the Court in Inding:
Clearly, therefore, Congress intended these officials
regardless of their salary grades, to be specifically
included within the Sandiganbayan's original
jurisdiction, for had it been otherwise, then there
would have been no need for such enumeration.
This conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that
some of the officials enumerated in "a" to "g" are
not classified as SG 27 or higher under the Position
Titles and Salary Grades of the Department of
Budget and Management.
Officers falling below salary grade "27"
1.
- Geduspan v. People, raised the issue on whether or
not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a
regional director/manager of government-owned or
controlled corporations organized and incorporated
under the Corporation Code for purposes of R.A.
3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
petitioner assumed a negative view in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme
Court. The Office of the Special Prosecutor argued
otherwise, a view shared by the Sandiganbayan.
The records showed that, although the petitioner
was a Director of Region VI of the Philhealth, she
was not occupying the position of Regional Director
but that of Department Manager A in accordance
with her appointment papers. It is petitioner's
appointment paper, held the Court and the notice of
salary adjustment that determine the classification
of her position, that is, Department Manager A of
Philhealth.
The petitioner admitted that she holds the position
of Department Manager A of Philhealth. She,
however, contended that the position of Department
Manager A is classified under salary grade 26 and
therefore outside the jurisdiction of respondent
court. The Court found that the petitioner held the
position of Department Director A of Philhealth at
the time of the commission of the offense and that
position is among those enumerated in paragraph
1(g), Section 4a of R.A. 8249 over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction and which provision
includes "Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned and controlled
corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations" (italics supplied).
It is of no moment, added the Court, that the
position of petitioner was merely classified as salary
grade 26. While the first part of Sec. 4 of P.D. 1606
covers only officials of the executive branch with
the salary grade 27 and higher, the second part
thereof "specifically includes" other executive
officials whose positions may not be of grade 27
and higher but who are by express provision of law
placed under the jurisdiction of the said court.
2.
- The core issue raised in this case of People of
the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
169004, September 15, 2010, was whether or not
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member
of the Sangguniang Panlungsod whose salary grade
is below 27 and charged with violation of The
Auditing Code of the Philippines. The Court held in
the affirmative, citing the provisions of R.A. 8249
and those that are classified as Grade 26 and below
may still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions
thus enumerated by the same law.
In resolving the issue in favor of the People, the
Court explained:
"Particularly and exclusively enumerated are
provincial governors, vice-governors, members of
the sang- guniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads; city mayors, vice-mayors,
members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city
department heads; officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position as consul and higher,
Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains, and all officers of higher rank; PNP chief
superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;
City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants,
and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor; and presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of govern-ment-
owned or controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations. In
connection therewith, Section 4 (b) of the same law
provides that other offenses or felonies committed
by public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan"
Those that are classified as grade 26 and below may
still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan provided they hold the position
enumerated in the law. As in the other case, the
Court held that Section 4 (b) of the same law
provides that other offenses or felonies committed
by public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Thus, "x x x those public officials enumerated in
Sec. 4(a) of PD1606 as amended may not only be
charged with violations of R.A. 3019 (Anti-graft
and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 1379 or Chapter II,
Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, but
also with offenses or felonies in relation to their
office. The said other offenses and felonies are
broad in scope but are limited only to those that are
committed in relation to the public official or
employee's office, x x x as long as the offense
charged in the information is intimately connected
with the office and is alleged to have been
perpetrated while the accused was in the
performance x x x of his official functions xxx the
accused is held to have been indicted in relation to
his office" (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
167304, August 25,2009)
Salary grade alone does not determine
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
- It is not only the salary grade that determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other
officers enumerated in P.D. 1606 as amended.
While the first part of Sec. 4(a) of the law covers
only officials with salary grade 27 and higher, its
second part specifically includes other executive
officials whose positions may not be with salary
grade 27 or higher but who are by express provision
of the law placed under the jurisdiction of said
court.
A student regent of a state university is a public
officer
- The argument that she was not a public officer was
struck down by the Court. The petitioner is a public
officer whose position is covered by the law vesting
jurisdiction over the Sandiganbayan. The provisions
of Sec. 4(a)(1)(g) of P.D. 1606 as amended,
explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations.
The petitioner, as a student regent falls under this
category. The board of Regents of the University of
the Philippines performs functions similar to those
of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By
express mandate of the law, the petitioner declared
the Court, is a public officer as contemplated by
P.D. 1606. The Court added that compensation is
not an essential element of a public office and is
merely incidental to the public office. (Serana v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22,
2008)
Offenses committed in relation to the office
1.
- As a rule, to make an offense one committed in
relation to the office, "the relation has to be such
that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist
without the office." In other words, the office must
be a constituent element of the crime as defined by
statute, such as for instance, the crimes defined and
punished in Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven of the
Revised Penal Code, like direct bribery, frauds
against the public treasury, malversation of public
funds and property, failure of an accountable officer
to render accounts, illegal use of public funds or
property or any of the crimes from Articles 204 to
245 of the Revised Penal Code.
2.
- Even if the position is not an essential ingredient
of the offense charged, if the information avers the
intimate connection between the office and the
offense, this would bring the offense within the
definition of an offense "committed in relation to
the public office"
3.
- An offense maybe said to have been committed in
relation to the office if the offense is "intimately
connected" with the office of the offender and
perpetrated while he was in the performance of his
official functions even if public office is not an
element of the offense charged.
It is important however, that the information must
allege the intimate relation between the offense
charged and the discharge of official duties because
the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual
recital of the facts in the complaint or information.
If the information lacks the required specific factual
averments to show the intimate connection between
the offense charged and the discharge of official
functions, it was ruled that the Sandiganbayan is
without jurisdiction over the case.
Ex:
a. Esteban v. Sandiganbayan, the accused filed
motions to quash the two informations filed against
him for acts of lasciviousness allegedly perpetrated
by him against a female casual employee assigned
to his office. The accused argued that the
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged since the alleged acts imputed to him were
not committed in relation to his office as a judge.
When the motion to quash and the subsequent
motion for reconsideration were denied, he brought
the issue of jurisdiction before the Supreme Court
on certiorari under Rule 65.
The Supreme Court sustained the Sandiganbayan
because the information alleged with clarity that the
accused used his official position to commit the acts
charged. As alleged in the information, the victim
was constrained to approach the accused because it
was the latter whose recommendation was
necessary for her appointment as a casual employee
but the accused imposed the condition that she has
to become his girlfriend first and report to his office
daily for a kiss. While it is true, explained the Court,
that public office is not an element of the crime of
acts of lasciviousness, nonetheless, he could not
have committed the crimes charged were it not for
his being the judge of the court where the victim
was working. Taken together with the fact that the
accused had the authority to recommend the
appointment of the victim as an employee, the
crimes committed were therefore, intimately
connected with his office.
b. In People v. Montejo, involving a city mayor
accused of murder, one issue sought to be resolved
was whether or not the accused committed the
murder in relation to his office. Examining the
allegations in the information, the Court found that
the information sufficiently indicated the existence
of acts and events intimately connected to the public
office of the accused. The information clearly
alleged that the murder was a consequence of his act
as a mayor; that he organized armed patrols and
civilian commandos and provided them with arms.
Also acting as the city mayor and leader of the
patrols, he ordered the arrest and maltreatment of
the victim who died as a consequence. While public
office is not an element of murder, the offense as
alleged shows its commission while the accused
was in the performance of his official functions and
that the offense could not have been committed had
he not held his office.
Public office is not, of course, an element of the
crime of murder, since murder may be committed
by any person. However, the averments of the
information could bring the offense within the
meaning of an "an offense committed in relation to
the public office'' and thus, the offense would fall
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
4.
- The previously cited cases require that the
information must contain the specific factual
allegations that would indicate the close intimacy
between the discharge of the official duties of the
accused and the commission of the offense charged,
in order to qualify the crime as having been
committed in relation to public office.
This requirement however, was not met in Lacson
v. Executive Secretary. While the amended
information for murder against the several accused
was alleged to have been committed "in relation to
their official duties as police officers," it contained
no specific allegations of facts that the shooting of
the victim was intimately related to the discharge of
the official functions of the accused.
Lacson held that the said phrase is not what
determines the jurisdiction of the court. What is
controlling is the specific factual allegations in the
information.
When the actual specific allegations of the
intimacy between the offense and the official
duties of the accused need not appear in the
information
1.
- It would appear from a reading of jurisprudence
that if public office is a constituent element of the
crime charged as provided for by statute, there is no
need for the information to state the specific factual
allegations of the intimacy between the office and
the crime charged, or that the accused committed
the crime in the performance of his duties.
These crimes are those in which the public office is
a constituent element as defined by statute and the
relation between the crime and the offense is such
that, in a legal sense, the offense committed cannot
exist without the office like malversation of public
funds or property defined and penalized by Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code, and the illegal use
of public funds or property defined and penalized
by Article 220 of the same Code. In these felonies,
public office of the accused is a constituent element
in both felonies.
2.
- The SC clearly explained that in those cases where
public office is not a constituent element of the
offense charged, the information has to contain
specific factual allegations showing the intimate
connection between the offense charged and the
public office of the accused, and the discharge of
his official duties or functions — whether improper
or irregular.
The requirement is not complied with if the
information merely alleges that the accused
committed the crime charged in relation to his
office because such allegation is merely a
conclusion of law.
However, where public office is a constituent
element of the crime charged there is no need for
the Prosecutor to state in the Information specific
factual allegations of the intimacy between the
office and the crime charged, or that the accused
committed the crime in the performance of his
duties.
3.
- In summary, an offense is deemed to be
committed in relation to the public office of the
accused when,
(a) such office is an element of the crime charged,
or
(b) when the offense charged is intimately
connected with the discharge of the official
functions of the accused.
Even if the position is not an essential ingredient of
the offense charged, if the information avers the
intimate connection between the office and the
offense, this would bring the offense within the
definition of an offense "committed in relation to
the public office."
Ex:
a. Where the information averred facts showing that
the accused took advantage of his official functions
as municipal mayor when he aimed his gun and
threatened to kill a councilor during a public
hearing, clearly the crime charged is intimately
connected with the discharge of official functions.
Anti-Money Laundering cases
Those money laundering cases committed by public
officers and private persons who are in conspiracy
with such public officers shall be under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Sec. 5, RA.
9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of2001)
Forfeiture cases
- RA 1379 is the law which declares that any
property found to have been unlawfully acquired by
any public officer or employee shall be forfeited in
favor of the state.
over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the
Supreme Court. (Sec. 4, PD 1606 as amended and
as amended further by RA 8249)

-A forfeiture case under R.A. 1379 arises out of a

cause of action separate and different from a
plunder case, thus negating the notion that the crime
of plunder absorbs the forfeiture cases. In a
prosecution for plunder, what is sought to be
established is the commission of the criminal acts in
furtherance of the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.
On the other hand, all that the court needs to
determine, by preponderance of evidence, under
R.A. 1379 is the disproportion of respondent's
properties to his legitimate income, it being
unnecessary to prove how he acquired such
properties. (Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
171381, October 12, 2009)

Appellate Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

- In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade '27' or
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No.
6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned
above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall
be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and
municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be,
pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided
in Batas Pambansa Big. 129, as amended.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive

appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether
in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or
of their appellate jurisdiction. (Sec. 4, PD 1606 as
amended and as amended further by RA 8249)

Authority to issue Writs and Other Processes

(Bar 2011)
- The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the
writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over
petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto,
arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may
be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction
RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
I. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES
Section 1. Institution of criminal actions.
a. How are criminal actions instituted?
- There are 3 ways of instituting a criminal action,
namely:
(a) By filing the complaint with the proper officer
for the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation, for offenses where a
preliminary investigation is required pursuant to
section 1 of Rule 112.
(b) By filing the complaint or information directly
with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, or a complaint with the office
of the prosecutor for offenses not requiring
preliminary investigation.
(c) By filing a complaint with the office of the
prosecutor in Manila and other chartered cities
unless otherwise provided in their charters.
Section 2. The Complaint or Information.
a. What is the form of a complaint or
information and who are the parties involved?
- The complaint or information shall be in writing,
in the name of the People of the Philippines and
against all persons who appear to be responsible for
the offense involved. (2a)
Section 3. Complaint defined.
a. What is a Complaint?
- A complaint is a sworn written statement charging
a person with an offense, subscribed by the
offended party, any peace officer, or other public
officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated.
Section 4. Information defined.
a. What is an Information?
- An information is an accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
prosecutor and filed with the court.
b. What is the effect of an Institution of Criminal
Action on Prescription?
- The institution of the criminal action shall
interrupt the running period of prescription of the
offense charged unless otherwise provided in
special laws.
Annotation:
What is the purpose of a criminal action?
-The purpose of a criminal action, in its purest
sense, is to determine the penal liability of the
accused for having outraged the state with his crime
and, if he be found guilty, to punish him for it.
Who are the parties to a criminal action?
1. State
- The offended party is the state or the People of the
Philippines.
2. Accused
3. Private Offended Party
- The interest of the private complainant or the
private offended party is limited to civil liability.
- The complainant’s role is limited to that of a
witness for the prosecution.
Can there be a direct filing in the Regional Trial
Court?
- No, as a rule there is no direct filing of an
information or complaint with the Regional Trial
Court under Rule 110 because its jurisdiction covers
offenses which require preliminary investigation.
When is direct filing in a court allowed?
- Direct filing in court occurs in cases where
preliminary investigation is not to be conducted.
When is a preliminary investigation required?
- A preliminary investigation is to be conducted for
offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at
least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day.
(Sec. 1, Rule 112, Rules of Court)
The abovementioned penalty is under the
jurisdiction of the MTC.
When does RTC acquire jurisdiction over an
offense?
- The RTC has jurisdiction over an offense
punishable with imprisonment exceeding 6 years.
When does RTC acquire jurisdiction over an
offense?
- MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6
years.
Is there a distinction on the interruption of
prescription time between offenses punished
under the RPC and those covered by special laws
upon the institution of a criminal action?
- No. The prevailing rule is that irrespective of
whether the offense charge is punishable by the
RPC or by a special law, it is the filing of the
complaint or information in the court, office of the
prosecutor or any quasi-judicial body interrupts the
prescription.
Does filing of a criminal action in a court without
jurisdiction interrupts the period of
prescription?
- Yes. Jurisdiction dictates that the running period
of prescription is interrupted with the filing of the
action even if the court in which the action was first
filed is without jurisdiction.
II. PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTION
Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action.
a. Who must prosecute a criminal action?
- All criminal actions either commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor.
b. Can a private prosecutor prosecute a criminal
action?
In case of heavy work schedule of the public
prosecutor or in the event of lack of public
prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor
to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the
court.
c. Until when can a private prosecutor prosecute
a criminal action?
Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action,
the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute
the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of
a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked
or otherwise withdrawn
Annotations:
Does the private party have a legal personality to
prosecute the criminal aspect of a case?
- No
What is the extent of authority of a public
prosecutor in the exercise of his function?
- The public prosecutor, in the exercise of his
functions, has the power and discretion to:
(a) Determine whether a prima facie case exists,
(b) Decide which of the conflicting testimonies
should be believed free from the interference or
control of the offended party, and
(c) Subject only to the right against self-
incrimination, determine which witnesses to present
in court.
Can the SC order the prosecution of a person
against whom the prosecutor does not find
sufficient evidence to support at least a prima
facie case?
- No. The only possible exception to the rule is
where there is an unmistakable showing of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutor
Can the private prosecutor prosecute the
criminal action even if there is a public
prosecutor handling the case?
- Yes. The public Prosecutor may turn over the
actual prosecution of the criminal case to the private
prosecutor but he may, at any time, take over the
actual conduct of the trial.
How is a prosecution in the MTC or MCTC
conduted?
- A criminal action in a Municipal Trial Court or in
a Municipal Circuit Trial Court shall also be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the
prosecutor (Sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of Court).
However, when the prosecutor assigned is not
available, the action may be prosecuted by the
following:
(a) the offended party,
(b) any peace officer,
(c) or public officer charged with the enforcement
of the law violated (OCA Circular No. 39- 2002,
August 21,2002).
Who represents the People of the Philippines in
appeals filed before the CA or the SC?
- The authority to represent the state in the appeal in
criminal cases before the CA or the SC is vested in
the OSG which is the law office of the government.
Is the conformity of a public prosecutor to a
petition for review before the CA sufficient?
- No. Jurisprudence and the rule mandate that the
same should be filed by the Solicitor General who is
solely vested with the authority to represent the
people in the CA or in the SC.
While the private prosecutor is allowed to intervene
in criminal proceedings on appeal in the CA or the
SC, his participation is only subordinate to the
People of the Phil., hence, he cannot be permitted to
adopt a position contrary to that of the SG.
Can the private complainant or the offended
party question the acquittal or dismissal of the
case of the accused?
- Yes, but only the civil liability aspect of the
accused.
Either the offended party or the accused may appeal
the civil liability of the accused. The public
prosecutor has no interest in appealing the civil
aspect of a decision acquitting the accused. The
acquittal ends the work of the public prosecutor.
Can the private offended party appeal from or
seek review of the dismissal of a criminal case
without the intervention of the OSG?
- Yes. There are instances, where the Court
permitted an offended party to file an appeal
without the intervention of the OSG, namely:
a. When the offended party questions the civil
aspect of a decision of a lower court.
b. When there is denial of due process of law to the
prosecution and the State or its agents refuse to act
on the case to the prejudice of the State and the
private offended party.
c. When there is grave error committed by the
judge, or when the interest of substantial justice so
requires.
What is the exception to the rule that only the
solicitor general mat represent the people on
appeal or certiorari in the SC or CA in criminal
proceedings?
- In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and
from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the
Office of the Ombudsman, through its special
prosecutor, shall represent the People of the
Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in
1986.
How is the prosecution for a violation of Special
Law conducted?
- Where the offense is a violation of a special law,
the same shall be prosecuted pursuant to the
provisions of said law. (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
For instance, a violation of the SEC code is a
specialized dispute. Hence, by law, it must first be
referred to a n administrative agency of special
competence such as the SEC.
In some cases, designation of special prosecutor is
required to assist the public prosecutor but the
public prosecutor still controls and supervises the
case.
What is the new rule affecting the appearance of a
private prosecutor in a criminal case?
- In cases where only the civil liability is being
prosecuted by a private prosecutor, the head of the
prosecution office must issue in favour of the
private prosecutor a written authority to try the case
even in the absence of the public prosecutor, The
written authority must be submitted to the court
prior to the presentation of evidence by the private
prosecutor in accordance with Sec. 5 Rule 110.
With this