Jurisdictions
when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
Jurisdiction over the subject Matter – The power
to hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong.
- Jurisdiction is determined at the time of
institution not during the arraignment.
- MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding four years and two months or a
fine not more than 40,000.00
Pablito v. People Case
- BP Blg. 22 is punishable of not less than 30
days but not more than 1 year or a fine of
not less than but more than double the
amount of the check which fine shall not
exceed 200,000.00
- Retroactive provisions apply to civil cases
that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage.
Jurisdiction over the Accused – acquired upon
either his apprehension, with or without warrant, or
by his voluntary appearance.
Miranda v. tuliao case
- Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
is deemed waived by the accused when he
files any pleasing seeking an affirmative
relief, except in cases when he invokes the
special jurisdiction of the court by impugning
such jurisdiction over his person.
Jurisdiction over territory – The offense should
have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.
- A court cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense committed
outside of its territory.
Agustin v. Pamintuan case
Prosecutive Jurisdiction
Office of the ombudsman – investigate on its own
or on complaint by any person, any act or omission
of any public official, employee, office or agency
unjust, improper, of inefficient.
Honasan v. Panel of investigatin Prosecutors
- Under the 1987 administrative code chapter
1 title III book IV, the DOJ, as the
government’s legal counsel and prosecution
arm, has the power to investigate the
commission of crimes, prosecute offenders
and administer the probation and correction
system.
- Under R.A 6770 or “the Ombudsman Act of
1989” the authority of the Ombudsman to
investigate offenses involving public officers
or employees is not exclusive but is
concurrent with other similarly Authorized
agencies of the government.
- Case may be cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan does not remove from the
DOJ panel the authority to investigate the
case.
Sandiganbayan – has exclusive jurisdiction
over the accused belongs to those with Salary
of Grade 27 of higher or other officials.
- the nature of the crime in violation of R.A no.
3019 as amended R.A no. 1379.
- or any crime in relation to one’s public office
People of the Philippines v. Go
-Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan includes
private persons when acting in conspiracy with
the same public officers.
(kahit mamatay yung public official, the
sandiganbayan still have jurisdiction over the
private person because, why not? Charot. Kasi
the act of one is the act of all when it comes to
conspiracy, diba? Gets niyo na yon.)
Rule 126 SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Section 1
Search warrant – an order in writing issued in
the name of the people of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court.
1
- Is not a criminal action. The proceeding is
not against any person but solely for the
discovery and toget possession of personal
property.
Section 2 of the article III of the constitution “the
right of the people against unreasonable search
and seizure. Search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge.
People v. Marti case
- The constitutional right against
unreasonable search and seizure refers to
the immunity of one’s person, whether
citizen or alien, from interference by
government. Its protection is directed only to
governmental action.
- This right do not require exclusion of
evidence obtained through a search by a
private citizen.
- When a private individual violates another
person’s right to privacy, the evidence
obtained therefrom is admissible; however
the violator could be held civilly liable under
Article 32 of the civil code.
Requisites of a valid search warrant
-existence of probable cause
- probable cause must be determined
personally by the judge
- the judge must examine in writing under the
oath or affirmation, the complainant and the
witnesses he or she may produce
-the applicant and the witnesses testify on the
facts personally known to them
- the warrant specifically describes the place to
be searched and the things to be seized
Search with Warrant - is a judicial process
designed by the rules of respond only to an
incident in the main case.
- it is an instrument or tool, issued under the
state’s police power.
Ogayon v. People of the Philippines case
- The courts should indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver of fundamental
constitutional rights. Whenever a protection
given by the Constitution is waived by the
person entitled to that protection, the
presumption is always against the waiver.
The relinquishment of a constitutional right
has to be laid out convincingly.
Searches without warrant – the law
requires that there be first a lawful arrest
before a search can be made.
Vaporoso v. People Case
Warrantless search may be lawfully
effected if:
- In flagrante delicto
- Based on personal knowledge of the
arresting officer, there is probable cause
- An arrest of a prisoner who has escaped
from custody serving final judgment.
Search of moving vehicle
People v. Sapla case
- A mere informant’s tip is not sufficient to
engender probable case.
- A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it
may be.
- Searches and seizure must be done with a
court issued warrant.
- Search of a moving vehicle where a valid
warrantless search and seizure may be
effected if:
1. The vehicle is parked on public fair
grounds, the officer may only draw
aside is curtain
2. The officer may only look into
vehicle
3. The officer may only flash a light
without opening the vehicle’s doors
4. The occupants of the vehicle are not
subjected of physical or body search
5. Limited to visual search
6. If done as a routine check, must be
conducted in a fix area (like
checkpoint, ganon. Tama ba?)
2
Plain view doctrine
“ Plain view ” issue
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure even without a search warrant
and may be introduced in evidence.  computer, and subsequently asking him to
An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly
exposed to sight.  The difficulty arises when the
object is inside a closed container.  Where the
object seized was inside a closed package, the
object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot
be seized without a warrant.  when there are reasonable grounds for
Consented Search
- Fourth Amendment rights, like other
constitutional rights, may be waived, and
one may consent to a search of his person
or premises by officers who have not
complied with the Amendment.
-
Stop and Frisk
People v. Mengote case
Section 5 par a of rule 113 of rules of court requires
that a person be arrested after he has committed or
while he is actually committing or is at least
attempting to commit an offense in the presence of
the arresting officer.
Emergency circumstances
People v. De Garcia Case
- The raiding team had no opportunity to
apply for and secure a search warrant from
the courts.
- Under such urgency and exigency of the
moment, a search warrant could lawfully be
dispensed with.
- There was sufficient probable cause for said
officers to believe that accused was then
and there committing a crime.
- The required probable cause that will justify
a warrantless search and seizure is not
determined by any fixed formula but is
resolved according to the facts of each
case.
Computer Search
Pollo v. Constantino David Case
- “fishing expedition” when they unlawfully
copied and printed personal files in his
submit his comment which violated his right
against self-incrimination.
- A search by a government employer of an
employee office is justified at inception
suspecting that it will turn up evidence that
the employee is guilty of work-related
misconduct.
Search in connection with enforcement
Salvador v. People of the Philippine case
- Searches and seizures may lawfully be
effected sans a search warrant;
1. Search of moving vehicle
2. Search in plain view
3. Customs searches
4. Waiver or consented searches
5. Stop-and-frisk situation
6. Search of incidental to a lawful
arrest
- Law enforcers who are tasked to effect the
enforcement of the customs and tariff laws
are authorized to search and seize, without
a search warrant, any article, cargo or other
movable property when there is reasonable
cause to suspect that the said items have
been introduced into the Philippines in
violation of the tariff and customs law.
Motion to quash to quash a search warrant
or to suppress evidence – may be filed in and
acted upon only by the court where the action
has been instituted. (section 14 of rule 126 of
rules of court)
3
 RULE 110 Prosecution of offenses
Rule 111 Civil Actions
Prosecution of criminal action
-a) For offenses where a preliminary
investigation is required pursuant to section 1 of
Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the proper
officer for the purpose of conducting the
requisite preliminary investigation.
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint
or information directly with the Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the
complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In
Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint
shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor
unless otherwise provided in their charters
People v. Grey Case
-Article III section 2 of the Philippine
Constitution does not mandatorily require the
judge to personally examine the complainant
and her witnesses. Instead, he may opt to
personally evaluate the report supporting
documents submitted by the prosecutor or he
may disregard the prosecutors report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits
of witnesses.
- judge should not rely solely on the report of
the prosecutor.
Prosecution of civil action
Tenebro v. People
- Individual who contracts a second or
subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of valid marriage is criminally
liable for bigamy notwithstanding the
declaration of the 2nd marriage as void ab
initio on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
- The civil case questioning the validity of the
first marriage would not be a prejudicial
issue.
Rule 112 Preliminary investigation, Inquest
Section 1 of rule 112 – preliminary investigation is
an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the responded is probably guilty thereof and
should be held for trial.
Except as provided in section 7 of this rule, a P.I is
required to be conducted before the filing of a
complaint or information for an offense where the
penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2
months and 1 day without regard to the fine.
Paderanga v. Drilon case
- P.I is generally inquisitorial and it is often
the only means of discovering the persons
who may be reasonably charged with a
crime to enable the fiscal to prepare his
complaint or information.
- It is not a trial of the case on the merits and
has no purpose except that of determining
where a crime has been committed and
whether there is probable cause to believe
that the accused is guilty.
Remedies Crespo v. Mogul Case
It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions
either commenced by complaint or by
information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the fiscal. The institution
of a criminal action depends upon the sound
discretion of the fiscal. The reason for placing
the criminal prosecution under the direction and
control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or
unfounded prosecution by private persons.
-the Secretary of Justice should, as far as
practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition
for review or appeal from the action of the
fiscal, when the complaint or information has
already been filed in Court. The matter should
be left entirely for the determination of the
Court.
4
- a person arrested without a warrant, after the
conduct of an inquest has the following
remedies
1. Request for P.I either before or after the
filing of the information.
2. Apply for bail
Hold Departure Garcia v. Sandiganbayan
Case
-  this Court, in the exercise of its inherent
power to use all means necessary to carry
its orders into effect, more specifically, to
preserve and maintain the effectiveness of
its jurisdiction over the case/s and the
person/s of the accused so as to render
accused at all times amenable to its writs
and processes (Section 6, Rule 135;
Section 23, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court)
-  A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC pertaining to the
Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure
Order
- Section 1. Precautionary Hold Departure
Order. – is an order in writing issued by a
court commanding the Bureau of
Immigration to prevent any attempt by a
person suspected of a crime to depart from
the Philippines, which shall be issued ex-
parte in cases involving crimes where the
minimum of the penalty prescribed by law is
-  The application for a precautionary hold
departure order may be filed by a
prosecutor with any regional trial court
within whose territorial jurisdiction the
alleged crime was committed
Rule 113 Arrest
- Taking of a person into custody in order that
he or she may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense
- Arrest should be made only on the basis of
a valid warrant of arrest issued by a
competent authority, except in instances
where the law allows warrantless arrest.
- No violence or unnecessary force shall be
used in making an arrest. (Section 2 rule
113)
People v. Alcantara Case
-When warrant of arrest may issue. - (a) By
the Regional Trial Court. - Within ten (10)
days from the filing of the complaint or
information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor
and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause. If he finds probable cause,
he shall issue a warrant of arrest,
- In case of doubt on the existence of
probable cause, the judge may order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence
within five (5) days from notice and the
issue must be resolved by the court within
thirty (30) days from the filing of the
complaint of information.
Prosecuting in executing a warrant of
arrest
Luz v. People case
- Under R.A 4136, or the Land Transportation
and Traffic Code , the general procedure for
dealing with a traffic violation is not the
arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of
the driver’s license of the latter.
- The court has held that at the time a person
is arrested, it shall be the duty of the
arresting officer to inform the latter of the
reason for the arrest and must show that
person the warrant for arrest, if any.
Persons shall be informed of their
constitutional rights to remain silent and to
counsel, and that any statement they might
make could be used against them.
5
 Warrantless Arrest (in flagrante delicto)
People v. Edano Case
- A valid warrantless arrest under section 5
(a) first requires that the accused must
perform some overt act that would indicate
that he has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense.
- Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides that a peace
officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense. This is
known an arrest in flagrante delicto.
-  trying to run away when no crime has been
overtly committed, and without more, cannot
be evidence of guilt.
- Considering that the appellant's warrantless
arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure
that resulted from it was likewise illegal.  -
Hot Pursuit
Petilos v. Generoso
- In determining the reasonableness of the warrantless
arrests, it is incumbent upon the courts to consider if the
police officers have complied with the requirements set
under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, specifically, the requirement of
immediacy; the police officer's personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances; and lastly, the propriety of the
determination of probable cause that the person sought
to be arrested committed the crime.
- To reiterate, personal knowledge of a crime just
committed under the terms of the above-cited provision,
does not require actual presence at the scene while a
crime was being committed; it is enough that evidence of
the recent commission of the crime is patent (as in this
case) and the police officer has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has
recently committed the crime.
Rights of an arrested person upon arrest, detention
or custodial investigation (Aquino v. Paiste)
- to be investigated, was already under custodial
investigation and the constitutional guarantee for
her rights under the Miranda Rule has set in.
Rule 114 Bail
- Bail is the security given for the release of the
release of a person in custody of the law. (Sec.
1 of rule 114)
- No person under detention by legal process
shall be released or transferred except upon
lawful order of the court or when he is admitted
to bail. (sec. 3 of rule 114)
- Bail not to prevent the accused from committing
additional crimes but to guarantee the
appearance of the appearance of the accused at
the trial.
- The right to bail “applies only when a person
who has been arrested and detained for
violation of Philippine criminal and does not
apply to extradition proceedings.”
All persons, except those charge with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong.
Types of Bail
- Bail as a matter of right
- Bail as a matter of discretion
- Bail for unindicted persons in custodia legsis
1. Bail as a matter of right – person in
custody, before or after conviction by
the MTC likewise entitled to bail as a
matter of right are those persons in
custody before conviction by the RTC of
an offense not punishable by life
imprisonment, death, or reclusion
perpetua.
2. Bail as a matter of discretion – the
granting of bail is discretionary upon
conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, provided that if the
penalty imposed is imprisonment
exceeding (6) years, there must be no
bail-negating circumstances.
- If the penalty imposed is imprisonment
exceeding 6 years and there exists a
bail negating circumstance, then bail
shall be denied, or cancelled, if already
granted.
6
 3. Bail for unindicted persons in custodia Period when right to counsel exists.
legis - - The right to counsel covers the entire period
beginning from custodial investigation until
Rules 115 Rights of accused rendition of judgment.
d. Right to be present at trial
a. Rights to be presumed innocent – be
- Securing to an accused person the right to be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
present in all criminal prosecutions against him
- The supreme court has said that the
must be understood as securing to him merely
presumption of innocence of an accused in a
the right to be present during every stage of his
criminal case is a basic constitutional principle,
own trial and not at the trial of another, or a co-
fleshed out by procedural rules which place on
accused.
the prosecution the burden of proving that an
Express waiver
accused is guilty of the offense, charge by proof
And accused may waive his presence at the trial
beyond reasonable doubt.
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail.
- Jurisprudence has elaborated on the need for
Under the rules of court, the accused has to be
proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction in
present:
criminal cases.
A. At the arraignment pursuant to paragraph
b. Right to be informed of the nature and cause
(b) Section 1, rule 116
of accusation – Due process in a criminal case
B. At the promulgation of judgment, except hen
requires that the accusation be in due form. And
conviction is for a light offense. Section 6 of
that notice thereof and an opportunity to answer
rule 120
the charges be given the accused.
C. When the prosecution intends to present
- It is always wise and proper that the accused be
witnesses who will identify the accused.
fully apprised of the charges against him in order
Implied waiver
to avoid any possible surprise that may lead to
- With respect to an accused who is not in
injustice.
custody, his non-appearance constitutes a
- In order to sufficiently inform the accused of the
waiver of his right to be present only for the trial
charged against him, a written accusation in the
set for the particular date of which he had notice.
form of a criminal information indicting the
As to witness
accused and subscribed by the fiscal must be
- The right to refuse to answer any particular
filed in court.
incriminatory question
- No matter how conclusive and convincing the
As to an accused
evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be
- An accused can refuse outright to take the stand
convicted of any offense unless it is charged in
as a witness.
the information on which he is tried or is
-
necessarily included therein.
c. Right to be present and to be heard in his
Defense
Right to counsel
- This right is granted to minimize the imbalance
in the adversarial system where the accused is
pitted against the awesome prosecutor
machinery of the state.
- This is a recognition that an accused does not
have the professional skill to protect himself
before a tribunal with the power to take his life or
liberty, wherein the prosecutor is an experienced
and learned counsel.
- In criminal cases, there can be no fair hearing
unless the accused has an opportunity to be
heard by counsel.
\