CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I
BASIC CONCEPTS:
• Criminal Procedure - treats of the series of processes
by which the criminal laws are enforced and by which
the State prosecutes persons who violate the penal
laws. It regulates the steps by which one who committed
a crime is to be punished.
• It lays down the process by which an offender is made
to answer for the crime he committed.
• Criminal law confines itself to the definition of offenses,
the penalties applicable for such offenses, and the
formulation of general principles for liability.
• Criminal law declares what acts are punishable while
criminal procedure provides how the act is to be
punished.
How Criminal Procedure be construed?
• The rules on criminal procedure, being parts of the
Rules of Court shall be ”liberally” construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
(Sec.6 Rule 1, RC)
• The rules of criminal procedure shall be liberally
construed in favor of the accused and strictly against
the state to even the odds in favor of the accused
against whom the entire machinery of the state is
mobilized.
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:
History:
1. Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure
2. General Orders No. 58, dated April 23, 1900
3. Amendatory acts passed by the Philippine Commission
4. The various quasi-acts, the Philippine Bill of 1902, the
Jones Law of 1916. Tydings- Mcduffie Law, 1935
Constitution of the Philippines
5. The Rules of Court of 1940and the 1964, 1985and 1988
Rules on Criminal Procedure
6. Various Republic Acts (R.A. 240, the Judiciary Act, RA
8249 creating the Sandiganbayan, Speedy Trial Act
7. Presidential Decrees
8. 1987 Constitution particularly Art. III of the Bill of Rights
9. Civil Code (Art. 32. 33 and 34)
10. Judicial decisions
11. RA 8393 the Speedy Trial Act
12. Various SC Circulars
13. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Dec. 1,
2000) (Rule 110 to 127)
14. 2017 Revised Guideline for Continuous Trial on Criminal
Cases OCA Circular 101-2017
Presently our source of Criminal Procedure is Rules 110 to
127 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure including the
Revised Guideline for Continuous Trial on Criminal Cases
and Applicable Jurisprudence. The Constitutional provisions
on the Bill of Rights (Rights of the Accused) are incorporated
in our Rules of Procedure.
WHAT IS THE SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN
THE PHILIPPINES?
• The judicial set up in the Philippines is accusatorial or
adversarial- it contemplates two contending parties
before the court which hears them impartially and
renders judgment only after trial. In our jurisdiction the
judge is not permitted to act as an inquisitor whom
pursues his own investigation and arrives at his own
conclusion.
• In the inquisitorial system, the court plays a very active
role and is not limited to the evidence presented before
it. The court may utilize evidence gathered outside of
the court and a judge or group of judges under this
system actively participates in the gathering of facts and
evidence instead of passively receiving information or
evidence from the parties
• The advantages of the adversarial system are that it
protects the rights of individuals and the presumption of
innocence, serves to protect citizens from potential
abuses of government, and works to check bias in the
courtroom setting. Whereas in an inquisitorial system,
the accused will be interrogated by the judge as it does
not provide a right to remain silent.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction in general is the power or authority given by a
law to a court or tribunal to hear and determine certain
controversies. It is the power of the courts to hear and
determine a controversy involving rights which are
demandable and enforceable.
Jurisdiction vs. Venue
• Venue is defined as the particular country or
geographical area in which a court with jurisdiction may
hear and determine a case. It means the place of the
trial. On the other hand, jurisdiction is the power of the
court to decide the case on the merits.
• Venue therefor is procedural while jurisdiction is
substantive. In civil cases, venue maybe waived or
stipulated by the parties. On the other hand, jurisdiction
is granted by law or the constitution and cannot be
waived or stipulated.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION:
• Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a
particular offense and impose the punishment for it.
(Antiporda vs. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 441)
• Due process; mandatory - Due process in criminal
proceeding is mandatory and indispensable and cannot
be met without a law which hears before it condemns
and proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only
after trial.
Requirements of due process in a criminal proceeding:
1. Court or tribunal is properly clothed with judicial power to
hear and determine the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the
accused;
3. That the accused is given the opportunity to be heard;
and
4. That judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION:
• Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a
particular offense and impose the punishment for it.
(Antiporda vs. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 441)
• Requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over
criminal cases:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter- the offense is
one which is authorized by law to take cognizance
of.
2. Jurisdiction over the territory-the offense has been
committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused- the
person charged must have been brought before the
court for trial, forcibly by arrest or upon his voluntary
submission to the court
• All three requisites must concur before a court can
acquire jurisdiction
Antiporda v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 133289 (1999),
citing Arula v. Espino, G.R. No. L-289-49 (1969)].
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER-
• Refers to the authority of the court of the court to hear
and determine a particular criminal case. It is in simple
terms jurisdiction over the offense charged.
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter includes the
power to determine whether or not it has the authority to
hear and determine the controversy presented and the
right to decide whether or not the statements of facts
that confer jurisdiction exists, as well as other matters
that arise in the case legitimately before the court
( Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc. G.R. No.195834, November
9, 2016)
How is jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred?
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law,
and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to
take cognizance of and to render judgment on the
action. It is conferred by the sovereign authority which
organized the court and is given only by law in the
manner and from prescribed by law.
• Conferred by law and cannot be conferred by the courts,
cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor acquired
through waiver or silence or enlarged by the parties’
omission nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court
or by mere administrative policy of any trial court (Cudia
vs. CA G.R. No.110315)
• The Batas Pambansa 129 or the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980 was approved on August 14,
1980, specifically provided the composition, jurisdiction
and the creation of the court, from the first level courts,
second level courts to the Court of Appeals. This was
amended by Republic Act 7691 dated March 25, 1994
which expanded the jurisdiction of the courts by
increasing the jurisdictional amounts.
Article 8 of the 1987 constitution is the one that
confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred?
• Determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information . The court therefore must look into the
allegations of the written accusations for it to know
whether or not it has jurisdiction over the offense
charged therein. If the facts set out in the complaint or
information are sufficient to show that the court has
jurisdiction, then the court indeed has jurisdiction,
otherwise it has no jurisdiction.
Other doctrines on Jurisdiction over subject matter:
a. Use of imposable penalty – Jurisdiction is not
determined by the penalty actually imposed after trial but
by the penalty imposable by law on the offense.
b. The jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is
measured by the law in effect at the time of the
commencement of a criminal action rather than by the
law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense
charged. (Pp vs. Lagon 185 SCRA 442, neither it is
determined by the law enforced during the arraignment
of the accused (Palana vs. PP 534 SCRA 296) But at
the time of the institution of the action not at the time of
the commission of the offense( Pp vs. Cawaling 293
SCRA 267).
• However in the recent case of Assistio vs. PP, G.R. No.
200456 April 20, 2015 it was held that “ In criminal
cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
averments of the complaint or information, in relation to
the law prevailing at the time of its commission”
Principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing
jurisdiction
GR: Once a court acquired jurisdiction over a controversy, it
shall continue to exercise such jurisdiction until the final
determination of the case and the same is not affected by the
subsequent legislation vesting jurisdiction over such
proceeding in another tribunal.
XPNs: 1. When the statute expressly so provides; or
2. When the statute is clearly intended to apply to
pending actions
• The jurisdiction of the court is referred to as “continuing”
in view of the general principles that once a court has
acquired jurisdiction, that the jurisdiction continuous until
the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of
that jurisdiction.
Dismissal on jurisdictional grounds:
GR: An objection on the ground that the court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised or
considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the
proceeding or appeal. (Fukuzume vs. PP 474 SCRA 570)
Hence, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if
raised for the first time on appeal. (Atienza vs. Pp Feb. 12,
2014)
XPN: A party may be estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction of the court by reasons of public policy as when
he initially invokes the jurisdiction of the court and later on
repudiates that jurisdiction (Antiporda vs. Garchitorena 321
SCRA 551 and PP vs. Munar 53 SCAR 278)
• The right to raise the issue of jurisdiction has its
limitations. A party according to the court, cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief
against his opponent and after failing or obtaining such
relief, repudiate or question the same.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSSED
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused - refers to the
authority of the court over the person charged, which is
acquired by the court upon his arrest or apprehension with or
without a warrant or by his voluntary or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to
have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
• Acts of voluntary submission:
- Filing motions for dismissal of the case/Motion to
Quash
- Appearing for arraignment, even if he fails to appear
during trial
- Presenting evidence during trial
- Filing for Motion for Determination of Probable
Cause
• These acts are tantamount to voluntary submission, and
in instances a waiver of his constitutional protection
against illegal arrest.
• Exception: When the accused makes a special
appearance purposedly to challenge the jurisdiction of
the accused and not tantamount to estoppel or waiver of
the objection nor to a voluntary submission ( Garcia vs.
Sandiganbayan 603 SCRA 348) . But when the
appearance is by motion is for the purpose of objecting
to the jurisdiction 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 (Cojuangco vs.
Sandiganbayan 388 SCRA 367)
• Custody of the law vs. Jurisdiciton over the person:
objecting to legality of the arrest:
• Custody of the law is not necessarily being under the
jurisdiction of the court.
• But “Custody of the law “is not necessarily being under
the jurisdiction of the court.
• Custody of the law is only required before the court can
act upon the application for bail but not required for
adjudication of other reliefs sought by the accused
where the mere application constitutes a waiver of the
defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person.
Injunction to Restrain Criminal Prosecution:
GR: It is an established judicial policy that injunction whether
preliminary or final injunction cannot be used to thwart
criminal prosecutions because investigating criminal acts
and prosecuting their perpetrators have always been in the
interest of the public. Such policy is intended to protect the
public from criminal acts. (Home Development Mutual Fund
vs. Sagun, G.R. No. 205698. July 31, 2018)
XPN: which are meant to apply in extreme cases:
• When the injunction is intended to afford adequate
protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
• When it is necessary for the orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
• When there is judicial question which is subjudice;
• When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority;
• Where the prosecution is under an invalid law;
• When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
• Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
• Where it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution;
• Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated
by the lust of vengeance;
• When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied. (Brocka vs. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183, Samson vs.
Guingona, 348 SCRA 32)
• Mandamus to Compel Prosecution:
GR: In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor
exercises a wide latitude of discretion in determining whether
a criminal case shall be filed in court, and the court must
respect the exercise of such discretion. As a rule, Mandamus
therefore, will not lie to compel criminal prosecutions.
The court has consistently ruled that 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”
XPN: If despite the sufficiency of the evidence before him.
The prosecutor 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; hence Mandamus will lie.
In the same vein, the Secretary of Justice would gravely
abuse his discretion when, despite the existence of sufficient
evidence for the crime as acknowledged by the investigating
prosecutor, he completely ignores the latter’s findings.
BATAS PAMBANSA Blg. 129 "The Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980.”
 AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
• Created, established the CA. RTC, METC, MTCC, MTC,
MCTC, and proving their respective jurisdictions.
• Republic Act No. 7691          March 25, 1994
• AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA,
BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "JUDICIARY
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980"
• The Batas Pambansa 129 or the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980 was approved on August 14,
1980, specifically provided the composition, jurisdiction
and the creation of the court, from the first level courts,
second level courts to the Court of Appeals. This was
amended by Republic Act 7691 dated March 25, 1994
which expanded the jurisdiction of the courts by
increasing the jurisdictional amounts.
MTC/MeTC/MCTC Jurisdiction:
Except those cases falling within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, these
courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over:
1. Violations of city or municipal ordinances committed
within their territorial jurisdiction [Sec. 32, B.P. 129, as
amended by RA 7691]
2. Offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6
years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless
of other imposable or accessory penalties, including civil
liability irrespective of its kind, nature, or value [Sec. 32,
B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7691]
3. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence [Sec. 32, B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7691)]
4. Violations of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) which as
per A.M. Circular No. 00-11-01-SC shall be governed by
the Rules on Summary Procedure
5. Summary procedure in certain cases
6. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail in
the absence of all RTC judges in a province or city [Sec.
35, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691].
7. Concurrent original jurisdiction with RTCs over violations
of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act) in cities or provinces
where there are no family courts yet, depending on the
penalties prescribed for the offense charged [Sec. 16-A,
R.A. 7610, as amended by R.A. 9231 Protection against
Child Labor)
Summary Procedure in Criminal Cases;
The METC, MTCC, MTC and the MCTC shall have
jurisdiction over cases falling under summary procedure
committed within their jurisdiction (Se, 1, the 1991 Rule on
Summary Procedure)
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations
b. Violations of the rental law
c. B.P. 22 cases
d. Violation of municipal and city ordinances
e. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by
law for the offense charged is imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1,000, or
both
f. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence where the imposable penalty does not
exceed P10,000 [Sec. 1(b), 1991 Rules on Summary
Procedure]

Distinct Features of Summary Procedure:
• the complaint or information shall be accompanied by
the affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses in
such number of copies as there are accused plus two
copies for the court files, if not co0mpkied with the same
maybe dismissed.
• Upon filing, if the court finds no ground to hold the
accused for trial it shall order the dismissal of the case,
otherwise the court shall set it for arraignment and trial
• If the court finds ground to hold accused for trial, it shall
order the accused to file his counter affidavit and
affidavits of his witnesses within 10 days from receipt of
the Order. The prosecution may be allowed to file reply-
affidavit also within 10 days from receipt of the counter-
affidavit.
• if the accused is in custody for the crime charged he
shall be immediately arraigned and after he enters a
plea of guilt he will be forthwith arraigned.
Before conducting trial the court shall call the parties to a
preliminary conference during which the following maybe
done:
a. entering into stipulation of facts
b. considering the propriety of allowing the accused to
enter a plea of guilty
c. referral to mediation if applicable
d. taking up such other matters to clarify the issues and to
ensure a speedy disposition of the case.
• Any admission of the accused made during the
preliminary conference must be reduced to writing and
signed by the accsued and counsel, if this condition is
not met, such admission shall not be used against him.
• During trial the actual direct examination of the
witnesess is not required because the affidavits
submitted by the parties shall constitute their direct
testimonies, subject to cross, re-direct or re-cross
examination.
• Except in rebuttal or surrebuttal, no witness shall be
allowed to testify unless his affidavit was previously
submitted to the court.
• in cases under summary procedure, the court shall not
order a warrant of arrest except when the accused fails
to appear in the arraignment and trial.  Release of the
person arrested shall either be on bail or on
recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the
court.
Judgment. — Where a trial has been conducted, the court
shall promulgate the judgment not later than thirty (30) days
after the termination of trial.
Referral to Lupon. — Cases requiring referral to the Lupon
for conciliation under the provisions of Presidential Decree
No. 1508 where there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice and may
be revived only after such requirement shall have been
complied with.   This provision shall not apply to criminal
cases where the accused was arrested without a warrant.
Prohibited pleadings and motions.
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.
Special jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail in the
absence of all RTC judges in a province or city [Sec. 35, B.P.
129, as amended by R.A. 7691].
Concurrent original jurisdiction with RTCs over violations of
R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act) in cities or provinces where
there are no family courts yet, depending on the penalties
prescribed for the offense charged [Sec. 16-A, R.A. 7610, as
amended by R.A. 9231]
RTC Jurisdiction
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in criminal cases not within
the exclusive jurisdiction of -any court, tribunal or body,
EXCEPT those under the exclusive and concurrent
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan [Sec. 20, B.P. 129]
2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition,mandamus,quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction enforceable in any part of their respective
regions, These writs may in certain cases be availed of
in criminal cases. (Sec.21 (1) BP 129 as amended by
RA 7691.
3. Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by first-level
courts within its territorial jurisdiction [Sec. 22, B.P. 129,
as amended by R.A. 7691]
4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to handle
exclusive criminal cases as may be determined by the
SC.
5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws such
as:
1. Criminal and civil aspects of written defamation [Art.
360, RPC]
2. Criminal cases commenced by information against a
child upon determination of probable cause by the
prosecutor [Sec. 33, R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A.
10630] where there are no family courts [Sec. 4(g), R.A.
9344]
3. Violence against women and children, in the absence of
an RTC designated as a Family Court where the offense
was committed [R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act)]
4. Designated special courts over cases in violation of R.A.
9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act) [Sec. 90, R.A. 9165]
5. Violations of intellectual property rights [SC Admin-Circ.
No. 03-03 (2003)]
6. Money laundering cases [Sec. 5, R.A. 9160] EXCEPT
those committed by public officers and private persons
in conspiracy with such public officers, as jurisdiction is
with the Sandiganbayan.
Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction:
As provided for by REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10660
AN ACT STRENGTHENING FURTHER THE FUNCTIONAL
AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, FURTHER AMENDING
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED,
approved APR 16 2015
Section 4- Jurisdiction
1. Violations of R.A. 3019 or the Anti- Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act as amended
2. Violations of R.A. 1379 or An act declaring forfeiture in
favor of the state any property found to have been unlawfully
acquired by any public officer or employee and providing for
the proceedings therefor.
3. Violations of Book 2, Title VII, Section 2 (Bribery), Chapter
2 of the RPC (210-Direct Bribery 211-,Indirect Bribery,212-
Corruption of Public officials), where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, at the time of the commission of the offense:
a. Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional direction and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade “27” and higher of R.A. 6758
(see enumeration in RA 10660) which are:
specifically including:
i. "(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads:
ii. "(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of
the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and
other city department heads;
iii. "(c) Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and
higher;
iv. "(d) Philippine army and air force colonels,
naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;
v. "(e) Officers of the Philippine National
Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the
rank of senior superintendent and higher;
vi. "(f) City and provincial prosecutors and
their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
vii. "(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations.
viii. "(2) Members of Congress and officials
thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher
under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989;
ix. "(3) Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
x. "(4) Chairmen and members of the
Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
xi. "(5) All other national and local officials
classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under
the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989. 6758- AN ACT
PRESCRIBING A REVISED
COMPENSATION AND POSITION
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IN THE
GOVERNMENT
xii. Other offenses, simple or complex, with
other crimes committed by the
abovementioned public officials and
employees in relation to their office (RA
10660)
xiii. Criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A (1986)
under RA 10660
RA 10660 also provides:
• "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.
• "In case private individuals are charged as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
employees, including those employed in government-
owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried
jointly with said public officers and employees in the
proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over them.
• "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.
• Meaning the offenses or felonies that can be committed
by public officials and employees is not restricted to RA
3019 (anti-graft), RA 1397 (forfeiture) or in Title VII,
Book 2 Section 2 of the RPC (bribery) it can be any
offense provided committed by a public official or
employee in relation to his office.
• The term “offenses or felonies” in letter (d) above are so
broad in meaning and are not restricted to any of the
laws earlier mentioned. THESE OFFENSES HOWEVER
MUST BE THOSE COMMITTED BY OFFICIALS “IN
RELATION TO THEIR OFFICE”.
Panlalawigan in relation to his ofc )Pactolin vs,
Sandiganbayan 554 SCRA 136.
- An offense is deemed committed in relation to his office
when:
1. The office is a constituent element of the crime as
defined in the statute
2. The offense be intimately connected with the office of
the offender
3. The fact that the offense was committed in relation to
the office must be alleged in the Information [People v.
Magallanes, G.R. No. 118013-14 (1995)] Failure to
allege that the offense was committed in relation to the
office or was necessarily connected with the discharge
of their functions vests jurisdiction with the RTC. [People
v. Cawaling G.R. No. 117970 (1998)]
• In summary, an offense is deemed to be committed in
relation to the public office o the accused when: a) such
office is an element of the crime charged 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 specific factual
allegations showing the intimates connection between
the offense and the alleged criminal act, this would bring
such offense within the definition of an offense
“committed in relation to the public office”.
Salary Grade 27 or higher:
The law mentions salary grade 27 up, only in relation to the
following officials:
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the
position of regional director and higher (RA 10666
sec 4 (a) (1);
2. Members of Congress or officials thereof (Sec 4(a)
(2) and;
3. All other national and local officials (Sec.4(a)(5)
4. These officials are those who are not enumerated in
letters “a” to “g” of Sec.4 (a)(1). These officials form
(a) to (g) are subject to the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan “regardless of salary grades”
(Inding v. Sandiganbayan, 434 SCRA 388)

Military Courts:
• General rule: Ordinary courts will have jurisdiction over
cases involving members of the armed forces, and other
persons subject to military law, regardless of who the
co-accused or victims are.
• Exception: When the offense is service oriented, it will
be tried by the court martial; Provided, that the President
may, in the interest of justice, order or direct, at any time
before arraignment, that any such crimes or offenses be
tried by the proper civil courts. [Sec. 1, R.A. 7055

END