MONTILLA, Licel M.

Criminal Procedure

CASE 1

(A.) Mario’s first contention, which was to dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction over the case, because it is not the designated
Family Court (which is Family Court Branch 15 of Tandag City),
is with merit. Provided in R.A. No. 8369 or the Family Courts Act
of 1997, Section 5, (k) (1), “cases of domestic violence against
women, which are acts of gender-based violence that results, or
are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or
suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as
battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's
personhood, integrity and freedom movement”, are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts.

Moreover, all the elements which constitute the crime of

R.A. No. 9262 are present in the hypothetical case given, which
Charisse suffered because of Mario’s extramarital affair with
Joanna. Hence, the case can be dismissed because RTC Br. 27 has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, but the rather,
the Family Court Br. 15.

On the other hand, Mario’s second contention is devoid of

merit. Although, the act of marital infidelity happened in Abu
Dhabi or outside of the Philippine territory, Philippine courts
still have jurisdiction over the case given. It is for the reason, that
the psychological violence was suffered by Charisse when she
was in the Philippines.

As jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is

determined by the allegations in the complaint or information,
threshing out the essential elements of psychological abuse
under R.A. No. 9262 is crucial. What R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes
is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence
causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Thus, the
mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and
distinct element in the commission of the offense. In Section 7 of
R.A. No. 9262, venue undoubtedly pertains to jurisdiction, as
stated in the case of AAA vs. BBB. Hence, the Philippine courts
still have jurisdiction over the case.

(B.) Yes, the motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction
will be granted. Only when there is no Family Court or RTC
 designated as Family Court, shall the RTC Br. 27, may assume
jurisdiction over the case of Charisse and Mario in addition to its
regular jurisdiction.

R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997), expressly

provides that cases such as of R.A. No. 9262, specifically
domestic violence against women who experienced
psychological harm or suffering like that of what Charisse
suffered, shall be within the jurisdiction of the Family Courts.
Hence, filing the case not with the Family Court, may be a
ground for the dismissal of the case.

CASE 2

It is the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) shall have the

jurisdiction over Tony’s case of Robbery in An Inhabited House.
Prision correccional has an imprisonment period of six months
and one day to six years. B.P. Blg. 129 provides that the
Municipal Trial Court and not the Regional Trial Court shall
have the 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 accessory or other penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof.

CASE 3

(A.) In the hypothetical case given, the case should be filed with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC). It is because, R.A. No. 1660
expressly provides that RTC shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not allege any
damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage
to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely
related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00).

Moreover, although Governor Xandor used his position to

consummate his intention of killing Trisha, there was no
allegation of damage to the government or any bribery. Hence,
as stated in one of the provisions of R.A. No. 10660, the case falls
within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC,
wherein the case of Governor Xandor should be filed.
(B.) Assuming arguendo that the jurisdiction over the case of
Xandor lies with the Regional Trial Court, Xandor should file his
appeal to the Sandiganbayan. As stated in one of the provisions
of R.A. No. 10660, 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. Therefore,
Xandor should file his appeal with the Sandiganbayan.

CASE 4

Yes, Charlie is correct to move for the dismissal of the case

for lack of jurisdiction. It is because R.A. 10951 is the type of law
which is one of the exemptions of the prospective application of
criminal laws, for it being favorable to the accused.

Additionally, provided in The Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure that lack of jurisdiction is one of those grounds where
the court may dismiss a case at any time when the court trying
the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Whenever
it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the action shall be dismissed.

Furthermore, since the prescribed or imposable penalty of

Charlie’s crime is now reduced to arresto mayor, which is only
one month and one day to six months, the Municipal Trial Court
shall have now the exclusive original jurisdiction of his case.
Thus, Charlie may move to dismiss his case filed with the RTC
for lack of jurisdiction.

CASE 5

(A.) Jose’s contention that his criminal liability has been

extinguished by prescription, is meritorious. Provided in Section
1 of Act No. 3326, that violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two months.

Additionally, also provided in Section 2 of the

aforementioned law, that prescription shall begin to run from the
day of the commission of the violation of the law, which based
in the case given, was in February 25, 2023. The information was
only filed until April 30, 2023, which lapsed the two-month
prescription. The filing of the information did not stopped the
running of the prescriptive period of the violation. Therefore,
 Jose’s criminal liability of his violation of the city ordinance, has
already prescribed prior to the commencement of the case.

(B.) In an instant where Jose violated a city ordinance or an

Ordinance No. 25 of Tandag City, Jose’s case may prosper
because his criminal liability will not be extinguished by
prescription.

As provided in Section 1 (b), Rule 110 of The Revised Rules

of Criminal Procedure, Tandag City being a chartered city, the
complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless
otherwise provided in their charters. When the complaint was
filed with the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in March 1, 2023, it
stopped the prescriptive period of the violation. For that reason,
Jose’s criminal liability from his violation of a city ordinance was
not extinguished by prescription, hence, Jose cannot move to
quash the complaint filed.