CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ASSIGNMENT 1

1. Know the following:

a. What are the kinds of actions under the Rules of Court?
Under the Rules of Court, judicial proceedings are of three kinds:

1) Civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A civil action may
either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil
actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.

Basis: Cause of action which is the act or omission by which a party violates
a right of another.

2) Criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punishable by law. The purpose is primarily punishment.

3) Special Proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a

right, or a particular fact. They are non-adversarial in nature except when
there are oppositors to the petition.

b. What is:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal procedure is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension and
prosecution of persons accused of any criminal offense and for their
punishment, in case of conviction (Herrera, Vol. IV, p. 1 2007 ed.).

Criminal procedure treats of the series of process by which the criminal laws
are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who violate the penal
laws. In the clear language of the Court, criminal procedure "regulates the steps
by which one who committed a crime is to be punished" (People v. Lacson, 400
SCRA 267).

Note: These are rules promulgated by the Supreme Court in relation to SC’s
rule-making power under Sec. 5(5), Art VIII of the Constitution. They are not
laws made by the Congress.

NATURE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

The nature of criminal proceeding is procedural. It harmonizes the
governmental functions of maintaining and promoting law and order while at
the same time protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens. Criminal
procedure lays down the processes by which an offender is made to answer for
the violation of the criminal laws.

VENUE
 Particular country or geographical area in which a court with jurisdiction
may hear or determine a case
 Basically means, place of trial
 Procedural
JURISDICTION
 Power of the court to decide a case on the merits
 Substantive
 Granted by law or by the constitution and cannot be waived or
stipulated

Joshua Casanas y Cabantac a.k.a. Joshua Geronimo y Lopez v PP

G.R. 223833; December 11, 2017
Ponente: J. Estela Bernabe

1. Subject: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the Decision
dated July 28, 2015 and Resolution dated January 11, 2016 of the CA
affirming the decision of the RTC finding petitioner Casanas guilty.
2. Petitioner Joshua Casanas drove the motorcab of private complainant
Christopher Calderon on August 14, 2012 in Bulacan for a passenger but
did not return the vehicle. Calderon reported the incident to the police
authorities. On August 19, 2012, Valenzuela police received a report of
sale of stolen motorcycle. Officers showed up, asked for proof of
ownership, and apprehended Casanas. The latter reasoned that he only
borrowed it.
3. Casanas argued that RTC Valenzuela had no jurisdiction over the case as the
carnapping happened in Marilao Bulacan and not in Valenzuela City.
4. Respondent RTC Valenzuela ruled that while Casanas’s possession of the
subject motorcycle was lawful in the beginning, such possession became
unlawful when he failed to return with intent to gain. CA affirmed it in
toto contending further that the removal of the sidecar bolstered the
conclusion that Casanas indeed intended to appropriate for himself. The
MR was also denied.
5. The OSG maintained that Casanas is already estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction as he not only failed to move for the quashal of the
Information based on such ground. He also voluntarily submitted himself
freely by participating in the trial.

Issue: Whether RTC-Valenzuela has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling: No, RTC-Valenzuela has no jurisdiction over the case.

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

In this case, the Information alleges that Casanas committed the crime within
the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC-Valenzuela. However, such allegation was
belied by private respondent Calderon’s own statement that the motorcycle
was taken by the accused while at the Market of Marilao, Bulacan. While the
Court notes that Casanas was arrested in Valenzuela City, the same is of no
moment, not only because such is not an element of the crime, but more
importantly, at that point in time, the crime had long been consummated. It is
deemed completed from the moment the offender gains possession of the
thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. It becomes
apparent that the crime was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the court, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The ruling of
RTC-Valenzuela, as well as the CA, is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Hence, the petition of petitioner Casanas was granted and the decision and
resolution of the CA are set aside. The case was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction without prejudice to its refilling in the proper court having
territorial jurisdiction over the case.

VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.

Venue is jurisdictional in that a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. The court of a
particular place can only exercise jurisdiction when the crime was committed
within its territorial jurisdiction or when any of its essential ingredients took
place within its territorial jurisdiction (G.R. 223833). It is in that court where
the criminal action shall be instituted.

Purpose: not to compel the defendant to move to, appear in, a different
court from that of the province where the crime was committed
as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his
witnesses in another place.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
The term "jurisdiction" refers to a court's power to hear a case. The
circumstances of an alleged crime determine which court is empowered to
hear it—for example, a federal or state court. Jurisdiction can play a big part
not only in procedure, but also in outcome.

Criminal jurisdiction is a term used in constitutional law and public law to

describe the power of courts to hear a case brought by a state accusing a
defendant of the commission of a crime. It is relevant in three distinct
situations: -to regulate the relationship between states, or between one state
and another; -where the nation is a federation, to regulate the relationship
between the federal courts and the domestic courts of those states comprising
the federation; - and where a state only has, to a greater or lesser extent, a
single and unified system of law, it is the law of criminal procedure to regulate
what cases each classification of court within the judicial system shall
adjudicate upon. People must be tried in the same state the crime is committed

VENUE VS. JURISDICTION

Venue’ is the place where the lawsuit is filed. Venue can be any region such as
a country or a district or a town or a city.

‘Jurisdiction’ is the authority given to a legal body for hearing a case. When
talking of jurisdiction, there are three concepts; such as, personal jurisdiction,
subject matter jurisdiction, and territorial jurisdiction.

In criminal cases, the venue will be the locality where the crime has been
committed such as the judicial district or town or country. In civil cases, the
venue will be the principal defendant’s residence or the place where a contract
was carried out. The court does not have the right to hear cases that fall outside
its jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and venue are words that are related to law. ‘Jurisdiction’ is the
authority given to a legal body for hearing a case. ‘Venue’ is the place where a
case is heard. Venue is the place where the suit is filed. In another term, venue
decides the locality of a suit. Venue can be any region such as a country or a
district or a town or a city. When talking of jurisdiction, there are three
concepts; such as, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and
territorial jurisdiction.

‘Personal jurisdiction’ means the right of the court over a person, and here the
position of the individual is not so important. ‘Subject matter jurisdiction’
means the right over the subject.

‘Territory jurisdiction’ means the right over a region or territory. The court
does not have the right to hear cases that fall outside its jurisdiction. As said
earlier, venue is the place where a case is filed. In criminal cases, the venue will
be the locality where the crime has been committed such as the judicial district,
town, or country. In civil cases, the venue will be the principal defendant’s
residence or the place where a contract was carried out. But sometimes the
parties concerned may change the venue for convenience. And in case a suit is
filed in a different venue, the defendant can readily demand for shifting the
venue. Though these two words are related to law and courts, the two words
are very much connected. In all cases, the venue of any crime is important as
well as that of the jurisdiction.

DISMISSAL VS. ACQUITTAL

Acquittal
 Basis for action: Always based on the merits
 Basis for action: Accused’s guilt is was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt
 Effect: Terminates the case
 Double jeopardy always attaches

Dismissal
 Basis for action: Does not decide the case on the merits
 Basis for action: Does not determine innocence or guilt
 Effect: Terminates the case
 It terminates the proceedings either because:
1. The court is not a court of competent jurisdiction
2. The evidence does not show that the offense was committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court
3. The complaint or information is not valid or not sufficient in
form and substance.
 Double jeopardy does not always attach

AAA v BBB
G.R. 212448; January 11, 2018
Ponente: J. Noel Tijam

1. Subject: Petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to nullify the

resolution of RTC-Pasig City. The resolutions granted the motion to
quash the Information which respondent BBB committed.
2. Petitioner AAA was married to BBB on August 1, 2006 but had mental and
emotional anguish as BBB had an alleged marital infidelity through an
illicit relationship with certain Lisel Mok. After the case for violation of
R.A 9262 (Anti-violence Against Women and their Children Act) was
filed, a warrant of arrest was issued but BBB evaded it leading to the
archival of the case.
 3. Respondent BBB worked as a chef in Singapore who later acquired
permanent resident status in September 2008. But the petition indicated
Quezon City, where his parents reside, as his address. In 2013, Motion
to Revive, Quash information, lift HDO and W/A were filed contending
further that the case be dismissed on the ground that the offense
transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
4. RTC was not convinced of prosecution’s argument that AAA’s suffering is
carried wherever she goes. RTC also negated that jurisdiction attaches
to the court notwithstanding the acts happened outside of the
Philippines. RTC granted the motion to quash on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction as the act complained of the accused occurred in Singapore.
5. AAA sought direct recourse via instant petition on a pure question of law
continuously claiming that the mental and emotion anguish is an
essential element of the offense which she experienced wherever she
goes. The RTC where she resides should take cognizance of the case.
6. BBB reasoned that the grant of the motion to quash is in effect an acquittal
and that only the civil aspect of a criminal case may be appealed by the
private offended party.

Issue: Whether the grant of the motion to quash is in effect an acquittal.

Ruling: No, the grant of the motion to quash is in effect not an acquittal.

Under the Rules of Court, motion to quash may not be viewed as an acquittal.

Acquittal is based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the
evidence does not show that defendant’s guild is beyond reasonable doubt.
Dismissal does not decide on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty.
Dismissal terminates the proceeding. If the prosecution fails to prove that the
offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the
case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal. The defendant may again
be prosecuted for the same offense before a court of competent jurisdiction.

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE VS. DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dismissal with prejudice

 Meaning: Dismissed permanently. It cannot be reopened or the
information re-filed.
 Effect: Disallows and bars the refilling of the complaint (G.R. 195450)
 Discretion of the court
 Appeal: Where the law permits, it is subject to the right of appeal

Dismissal without prejudice

 Meaning: Dismissal is not yet permanent. Prosecutor or petitioner or
plaintiff is not necessarily precluded from re-filing the case.
 Effect: Allows refilling of the same action
o Example: Dismissal without prejudice on the ground of
improper venue means that the action was dismissed but not
barred from re-filing the same before the competent court.
 Discretion of the court
 Appeal: Not appealable

2. HIERARCHY OF COURTS - BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended by

RA 7691
 Hierarchy of Courts:
 Supreme Court
 Court of Appeals,
 Sandiganbayan
 Court of Tax Appeals,
 Regional Trial Courts
 Family Courts
 Sharia District Courts
 First Level Courts
o Municipal Trial Courts (in each metropolitan area established by
law [Sec. 25, B.P. 129], particularly Metro Manila [Sec. 27, B.P.
129])
o Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (In every city not part of a
metropolitan area [Sec. 29, B.P. 129])
o Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (in each circuit comprising such
cities and municipalities grouped together pursuant to law [Sec.
25, B.P. 129])
o Metropolitan Trial Courts (in municipalities not comprised
within a metropolitan area and a municipal circuit [Sec. 30, B.P.
129])
 Sharia Circuit Courts

3. PD 1508 otherwise known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law/ Barangay Justice System
(also found in Section 399-422 of the Local Government Code- RA 7160).

Prime Importance: Basic tenet of constitutional law which is the right to a speedy
administration of justice and to help relieve the courts of docket congestion.
Nature of proceedings: The proceedings before the Lupong Tagamayapa or the
Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo of the barangay are not judicial proceedings. They
do not have adjudicatory powers. They resolve disputes or attempt to do so
through amicable settlement, conciliation, and arbitration. [1 Riano 659, 2016
Edition]
Importance: Where the case is covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, the
compulsory process of arbitration is required and is a precondition to the filing
of the complaint in the court. The complaint should be dismissed where the
complaint:
a. Did not state that it is one of the excepted cases,
b. Did not allege prior availment of the conciliation process, or
c. Did not have a certification that no conciliation or settlement had been
reached by the parties. [Agbayani v. CA, G.R. No. 183623 (2012)]

Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually
residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
disputes. [Sec. 408, LGC]
Lupong Tagapayapa is a boy composed of the Barangay Chairman and not less than 10
nor more than 20 members. After taking oath, shall exercise administrative
supervision over the conciliation panels and shall meet regularly, once a
month.

The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually
residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:
(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality
thereof;
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to
the performance of his official functions;
 (c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine
exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or
municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences
to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities
or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and
the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the
interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the
lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio
refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

Venue: Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be
brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.

(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city
or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or
any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complainant.
(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought
in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is
situated.
(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed
or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be
brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located.
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the
punong barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal
question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections
to venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice,
or his duly designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall be
binding.

Royales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

GR No. L-65072 January 31, 1984
Ponente: Justice Escolin

1. Apolinar Royales and Presentacion Gregorio

2. Petitioners are lesees of a residential house owned by respondent Jose
Planas. The latter instituted an ejectment suit against petitioners before the
then City Court. The Trial Court rendered a decision wherein petitioners
where to immediately vacate the house and restore possession thereof to
Planas.
3. Petitioners contend that the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
for failure of Planas to avail of the barangay conciliation process before the
filing of the case in court, as required by PD 1508, otherwise known as
"Katarungang Pambarangay Law"
4. Respondent: Intermediate Appellate Court, Jose Planas.
5. After the decision became final and executory, Planas filed a motion for
execution and the same was granted. However, the same was restrained by
the RTC upon the filing of the petitioners of an action (certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injuction) assailing the said decision on the
 ground of lack of jurisdiction, since Planas failed to submit the dispute to the
Barangay Lupon for conciliation as required by PD 1508.

Issue: Whethere or not the court has no jurisdiction due to non-compliance of

the condition prescribed by PD 1508

Ruling: No. The non-compliance of the conditions prescribed by PD 1508, does

not take away the court's jurisdiction.

Though the failure of Planas to submit the dispute to the Barangay Lupon
could affect the sufficiency of his cause of action and its maturity, the same
would not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its
powers of adjudication over the case before it. Therefore, the non-
compliance of the conditions prescribed by PD 1508 does not take away the
courts' jurisdiction.

Gonzalez vs. Court of Appeals

151 SCRA 289 G.R. No. L-59495-97; June 26, 1987
Ponente: J. Sarmiento

1. Petitioner: Gregorio Sarmiento, the owner of an apartment located in

Caloocan City. Three doors were leased to the private respondent for less
than Php 200.00 a month in rentals.
2. Action of the petitioner: The petitioner filed three separate complaints for
ejectment against the private respondents in the City Court now
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). According to him, he is need of the
premises for the use of his married children who do not allegedly have
residences of their own which is a ground for ejectment under the
provisions of Batas Blg. 25.
3. Subject/Object: The respondent Court dismissed the ejectment cases on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the City Court for failure of the parties to
undergo a confrontation at the barangay level.
4. Respondent: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MAR EVANGELISTA, LUCIANO
and ROSITA SESE and ESTRELLA BAUTISTA
5. Action of the respondent: The City Court rendered judgment ejecting the
private respondents. They appealed to the then Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch XXXII, now Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the trial
court's decision. Reconsideration having been denied, the private
respondents commenced proceedings in the respondent Court of Appeals.
Among others, the private respondents alleged that the Court of First
Instance erred in sustaining the jurisdiction of the City Court
"notwithstanding the admitted fact that there was no compliance in the
cases with the mandatory requirements of P.D. No. 1508.

Issue: Whether or not Barangay Conciliation is jurisdictional.

Ruling: No, Barangay Conciliation under PD No. 1508 is not jurisdictional.

Jurisdiction is conferred by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and the Judiciary Act of
1948. Presidential Decree No. 1508 does not vest jurisdiction in the lupong
tagapayapa. Jurisdiction means the power to try and decide a case. The lupon
does not decide cases. It is vested only with conciliation functions. It is not a
court of law.

Therefore, Barangay Conciliation under PD No. 1508 is not jurisdictional.