CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – OUTLINE
whether during trial or on appeal. (Amoguis v.
1. 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
2. What is criminal procedure concerned
with?
Criminal procedure is concerned with the
procedural steps through which the criminal
case passes, commencing with the initial
investigation of a crime and concluding with the
unconditional release of the offender. It is a
generic term used to describe the network of
laws and rules which govern the procedural
administration of criminal justice.
Concept of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases
In general, jurisdiction refers to the
court’s “authority to hear and try a particular
case and impose the punishment for it.” (People
v. Mariano, 1976)
In criminal procedure, this translates to:
(requisites for a valid exercise of criminal
jurisdiction)
1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2) Jurisdiction over the territory where the
offense was committed; and
3) Jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
“the power to hear and determine cases of the
general class to which the proceedings in
question belong.” (Treas v. People, 1986)
It is conferred by the sovereign authority that
organized the court and is given only by law in
the manner and form prescribed by law.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a
complaint is conferred by law. It cannot be
lost through waiver or estoppel. It can be
raised at any time in the proceedings,
Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018,
THIRD DIVISION, LEONEN, J.)
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is acquired upon either his
apprehension, with or without warrant, or by
his voluntary appearance. (Valdepenas v.
People, 1966)
This voluntary appearance may either
be the appearance of accused for arraignment,
or the appearance of a counsel for an accused.
GR: By seeking affirmative reliefs from
the court, a person is also deemed to have
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of said
court. (Sapugay v. Court of Appeals, 1993)
XPN: Those deemed merely special
appearances, or “whose prayer is precisely for
the avoidance of jurisdiction of the court”.
In criminal cases, these pleadings are:
1) Motion to quash a complaint on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused;
2) Motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
Jurisdiction over the territory where the
offense was committed: Venue is Jurisdictional
For jurisdiction over the territory to be
acquired by courts in criminal cases, “the
offense should have committed or any one of its
essential ingredients took place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.” (Uy v. CA,
1997)
A court cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with offense committed outside
of its territory.
The rule that venue is jurisdictional
should be more completely states as: venue, for
the purpose of institution of a criminal action, is
jurisdictional.
Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
The authority to decide a cast and not
the decision therein is what makes up a
jurisdiction. Where the jurisdiction over the
person and subject matter, the decision of all
other questions arising in the case is but an
exercise of the jurisdiction (de Veyra vs. Avila).
Distinguish Jurisdiction from Venue.
Jurisdiction is the power of the court to decide a
case on the merits, while venue refers to the
place where the suit may be filed. In criminal
actions, however, venue is jurisdictional.
Jurisdiction may not be conferred upon a court
by consent through waiver, but venue may be
waived except in criminal cases
What are the elements of jurisdiction in
criminal cases?
1. The nature of the offense and/or the
penalty attached thereto
2. The fact that the offense has been
committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.
Other concept of jurisdiction in criminal cases:
Jurisdiction over the issues
It is the power of the court to try and
decide issues raised in the pleadings of the
parties.
Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred
and determined by the pleadings (initiatory
pleadings or complaint and not the answer) of
the parties. The pleadings present the issues to
be tried and determine whether or not the
issues are of fact or law.
Jurisdiction over the Res (Thing) or Property
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the
court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the
property which is the subject of the action.
Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the
court by placing the property or thing under its
custody (custodia legis).
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by
the seizure of the thing under legal process
whereby it is brought into actual custody of law,
or it may result from the institution of a legal
proceeding wherein the power of the court over
the thing is recognized and made effective
(Banco Español Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil.
291)
Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error
of judgment
An error of jurisdiction is one where the
act complained of was issued by the court
without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs
when the court exercises a jurisdiction not
conferred upon it by law, or when the court or
tribunal although with jurisdiction, acts in
excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
An error of judgment is one which the
court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction. As long as the court acts within its
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing
more than mere errors of judgment. Errors of
judgment include errors of procedure or
mistakes in the court’s findings.
How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
“conferred by the sovereign authority that
organized the court and is given only by law in
the manner and form prescribed by law”. (Treas
v. People, 2012)
Stated otherwise, jurisdiction of a court
is defined by the Constitution or statute.
Jurisdiction of a court is determined “by
the allegations in the complaint or information”,
and not by the evidence presented by the
parties at the trial. (People v. Magallanes, 1995)
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, courts will not determine a
controversy involving a question within the
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal,
where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the
specialized knowledge and expertise of said
administrative tribunal to determine technical
and intricate matters of fact. (Baviera vs
Paglinawan, 2007)
Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction OR
Continuing Jurisdiction
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. (20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, § 147,
1965).
As a general rule, the jurisdiction of a
court to try a criminal action is to be
determined by the law in force at the time of
the institution of the action. A consequence of
this is the concept of adherence of jurisdiction,
the general rule and exception of which is
stated as follows:
GR: Where a court has already obtained
and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy,
its jurisdiction to proceed to the final
determination of the cause is not affected by
new legislation placing jurisdiction over such
proceedings in another tribunal.
XPN: The exception to the rule is where
the statute expressly provides, or is construed
to the effect that it is intended to operate as to
actions pending before its enactment. Where a
statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has
no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a
case that was pending prior to the enactment of
a statute. (People v. Court of Appeals, 2008)
Or
What is adherence of jurisdiction?
The principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction
means that once jurisdiction is vested in the
court, it is retained up to the end of the litigation.
It remains with the court until the case is finally
terminated. The exception to this is where a
subsequent statute changing the jurisdiction of a
court is given retroactive effect, it can divest a
court of jurisdiction over cases already pending
before it before the effectivity of the statute
The facts alleged in the complaint and the law
enforce at the time of commencement of
action of action determine the jurisdiction
GR: Jurisdiction of a court to try a
criminal case is to be determined at the time of
the institution of the action, not at the time of
the commission of the offense.
XPN: 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 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: xxxxx
If during the proceedings, the court finds that
it has no jurisdiction, how should it proceed?
Where the court has no jurisdiction, lower courts
should simply dismiss the case. On the other
hand, the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals may refer the case to the court of
proper jurisdiction
Which law determines the jurisdiction of the
court – the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offense or the one in
force as of the time when the action is filed?
Jurisdiction is determined by the law as of the
time when the action is filed, not when the
offense was committed. The exception to this
rule is where jurisdiction is dependent on the
nature of the position of the accused at the time
of the commission of the offense. In this case,
jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at
the time of the commission of the offense
3. The edict in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is not
an exception to the rule on jurisdiction
A court that does not have jurisdiction over
the subject matter of a case will not acquire
jurisdiction because of estoppel.
Rather, the edict in Tijam must be appreciated
as a waiver of a party's right to raise jurisdiction
based on the doctrine of equity. (Amoguis v.
Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018,
THIRD DIVISION, LEONEN, J.)
4. Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's or
tribunal's power to hear and determine
cases of a general class or type relating
to specific subject matters
This jurisdiction is conferred by law.
Amoguis v. Ballado, G.R. No. 189626,
August 20, 2018, THIRD DIVISION, LEONEN, J
Where there is no jurisdiction over a subject
matter, the judgment is rendered null and
void
A void judgment has absolutely no legal
effect, "by which no rights are divested, from
which no rights can be obtained, which neither
binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts
performed and all claims flowing out of are void
Estoppel by laches bars a party from
invoking lack of jurisdiction in an unjustly
belated manner especially when it actively
participated during trial
Estoppel by laches has its origins in equity. It
prevents a party from presenting his or her claim
"when, by reason of abandonment and
negligence, he [or she] allowed a long time to
elapse without presenting [it]."
In estoppel by laches, a claimant has a right
that he or she could otherwise exercise if not
for his or her delay in asserting it. This delay
in the exercise of the right unjustly misleads the
court and the opposing party of its waiver. Thus,
to claim it belatedly given the specific
circumstances of the case would be unjust.
Amoguis v. Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, August
20, 2018, THIRD DIVISION, LEONEN, J.
The doctrine of the "law of the case"
The doctrine of the "law of the case" provides
that questions of law previously determined by a
court will generally govern a case through all its
subsequent stages where "the determination
has already been made on a prior appeal to a
court of law resort."
PD No. 1271 Committee v. De Guzman, G.R.
No. 187291, December 05, 2016, SECOND
DIVISION, LEONEN, J.
Objections to jurisdiction over the subject
matter
When it appears from the pleadings or
evidence on record that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court
shall dismiss the same (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The court
may on its own initiative object to an erroneous
jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take
cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in
the case and has a clearly recognized right to
determine its own jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
for the first time on appeal. When the court
dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter, it is common reason
that the court cannot remand the case to
another court with the proper jurisdiction. Its
only power is to dismiss and not to make any
other order.
Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
The active participation of a party in a
case is tantamount to the recognition of that
court’s jurisdiction and will bar a party from
impugning the court’s jurisdiction.
Jurisprudence however, did not intend this
statement to lay down the general rule.
(Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corp. vs.
Estita, 449 SCRA 240; Mangaiag vs. Catubig-
Pastoral, 474 SCRA 153). The Sibonghanoy
applies only to exceptional circumstances.
The general rule remains: a court’s lack
of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings even on appeal (Francel Realty
Corp. vs. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424; Concepcion vs.
Regalado, 2007).
The doctrine of estoppel by laches in
relation to objections to jurisdiction first
appeared in the landmark case of Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy, where the SC barred a belated
objection to jurisdiction that was raised only
after an adverse decision was rendered by the
court against the party raising the issue of
jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief
from the court and after participating in all
stages of the proceedings.
When Injunction may be issued to Restrain
Criminal Prosecution
As a general rule, the Court will not
issue writs of prohibition or injunction
preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain,
criminal prosecution. With more reason will
injunction not lie when the case is still at the
stage of preliminary investigation or
reinvestigation. However, in extreme cases, the
Court laid the following 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. (Camanag v.
Guerrero, 335 Phil. 945, 970-971 [1997])
Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter
from jurisdiction over the person of the
accused (see also above)
The rule is that, in criminal cases,
jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
deemed waived (hence, you then submit
yourself to the jurisdiction of the court) when
he files any pleading seeking an affirmative
relief, except in cases when he invokes
the special jurisdiction of the court by
impugning such jurisdiction over his person
(you question the jurisdiction of the court).
In such cases where jurisdiction is
impugned, such as MOTIONS TO QUASH A
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED and
MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT OF ARREST,
an accused can invoke the processes of the
court EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NEITHER
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON NOR
CUSTODY OF THE LAW. In cases not involving
special appearance, the general rule applies,
i.e. the accused is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon
seeking affirmative relief. (Miranda v. Tuliao)
Distinction between custody of the law and
jurisdiction over the person.
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.
Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts (Venue is
Jurisdictional)
The place where the crime was
committed determines not only the venue of
the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal
cases, the offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential
ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory
where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Thus, it
cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged
with an offense allegedly committed outside of
that limited territory. Furthermore, the
jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint
or information. And once it is so shown, the
court may validly take cognizance of the case.
However, if the evidence adduced during the
trial shows that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
action for want of jurisdiction.
The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is a practical
judicial policy designed to restrain parties from
directly resorting to this Court when relief may be
obtained before the lower courts
This Court has emphasized in People v.
Cuaresma that the power to issue writs of
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus does not
exclusively pertain to this Court.
Rather, it is shared with the Court of Appeals
and the Regional Trial Courts. Nevertheless,
"this concurrence of jurisdiction" does
not give parties unfettered discretion
as to the choice of forum. Aala v. Uy,
G.R. No. 202781, January 10, 2017, EN
BANC, LEONEN,
Exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts
Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed
when any of the following grounds are present:
(1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are
raised that must be addressed immediately;
(2) when the case involves transcendental
importance;
(3) when the case is novel;
(4) when the constitutional issues raised are
better decided by this Court;
(5) when time is of the essence;
(6) when the subject of review involves acts of a
constitutional organ;
(7) when there is no other plain, speedy,
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
(8) when the petition includes questions that
may affect public welfare, public policy, or
demanded by the broader interest of justice
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, a party must first avail of all
administrative processes available before seeking
the courts' intervention
The administrative officer concerned
must be given every opportunity to decide on
the matter within his or her jurisdiction. Failing
to exhaust administrative remedies
affects the party's cause of action as
these remedies refer to a precedent
condition which must be complied with
prior to filing a case in court.
Republic v. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074,
January 17, 2018, THIRD DIVISION,
LEONEN, J.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, like the doctrine on hierarchy of courts, is
not an iron-clad rule. It admits of several well-
defined exceptions
Province of Zamboanga del Norte v.
Court of Appeals has held that the
principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies may be
dispensed in the following instances:
(1) [W]hen there is a violation of due
process;
(2) when the issue involved is purely a
legal question;
(3) when the administrative action is
patently illegal and amounts to lack or
excess of jurisdiction;
(4) when there is estoppel on the part
of the administrative agency
concerned;
(5) when there is irreparable injury;
(6) when the respondent is a
department secretary whose acts, as
an alter ego of the President, bears the
implied and assumed approval of the
latter;
Thus, the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction refers to the competence of a
court to take cognizance of a case at first
instance
Unlike the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, it cannot be waived.
However, for reasons of equity, in cases where
jurisdiction is lacking, this Court has ruled that
failure to raise the issue of non-compliance with
the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction
at an opportune time may bar a subsequent
filing of a motion to dismiss based on that
ground by way of laches.
DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY
GR: Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction
cannot interfere with each other’s orders.
(Riano, 2016, citing Lapu-Lapu Development
and Housing Corporation v. Group Management
Corporation, G.R. Nos. 167000 and 169971,
June 8, 2011) The principle also bars a court
from reviewing or interfering with the judgment
of a co-equal court over which it has no
appellate jurisdiction. (Riano, 2016)
No court can interfere by injunction with the
judgments or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant
the relief sought by the injunction. (Atty. Cabili v.
Judge Balindog, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225,
September 6, 2011) Even in case of concurrent
jurisdiction, the court first acquiring jurisdiction
excludes the other courts. (Pacific Ace Finance
Ltd. [PAFIN] v. Eiji Yanagisawa, G.R. No.
175303, April 11, 2012)
XPN: The doctrine does not apply where a third-
party claimant is involved - this is in consonance
with the well-established principle that no man
shall be affected by any proceeding to which he
is a stranger. (Sps. Crisologo v. Omelio, A.M.
No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, citing Sec.
16, Rule 39, and quoting Naguit v. CA, G.R. No.
137675, December 5, 2000)
Rationale
The rule is founded on the concept of
jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction
over the case and renders judgment therein has
jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of
all other coordinate courts, for its execution and
overall its incidents, and to control, in
furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial
officers acting in connection with this judgment.
(United Alloy vs UCPB, G.R. No. 179257,
November 23, 2015)
NOTE: The doctrine of non-interference likewise
applies with equal force to administrative bodies.
(Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan
Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R. No.
127371, April 25, 2002)
Totality or Aggregate Rule
Where there are several claims or causes of
actions, principally for recovery of money,
between the same or different parties embodied
in one complaint, the amount of the demand
shall be the totality of the claims in all
causes of action irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or
different transaction. (Sec. 5[d], Rule 2)
NOTE: Under the present law, the totality rule is
applied also to cases where two or more
plaintiffs having separate causes of action
against a defendant join in a single complaint,
as well as to cases where a plaintiff has
separate causes of action against two or more
defendants joined in a single complaint.
However, the causes of action in favor of the
two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more
defendants should arise out of the same
transaction or series of transactions and there
should be a common question of law or fact, as
provided in Sec. 6, Rule 3 (permissive joinder of
parties).
The totality rule is not applicable if the claims
are separate and distinct from each other and
did not arise from the same transaction. If there
is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the
claims
against respondents are separate and distinct,
then
neither falls within the RTC’s jurisdiction. (Flores
v.
Judge Mallare-Phillipps, G.R. No. L-66620,
September
24, 1986)
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF TRIAL COURTS
A. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and
Metropolitan Trial Court
Except in cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
Sandigaynbayan, the MTC shall exercise the
following criminal jurisdiction:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their territorial jurisdiction
(Sec. 23[1], BP. 129 as amended by RA 7691)
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6
years irrespective of the amount of fine, and
regardless of other imposable penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such
offenses irrespective of kinds, nature, value, or
amount. (Sec 32[2], BP 129 as amended by
RA7691)
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses
involving damage to property through criminal
negligence.
4. Violations of BP 22, which shall be governed
by the Rules on Summary Procedure in criminal
cases.
5. Summary procedure in certain cases
6. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications
for bail in criminal cases in the absence of all
RTC judges in a province or city.
B. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise the following
jurisdiction:
1. Exclusive 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. (Sec 20, BP
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.
3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided
by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction.
4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to
handle exclusively criminal cases as may be
determined by the Supreme Court
5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific
laws, such as:
a. Jurisdiction over criminal cases and civil
aspects of written defamation
b. Jurisdiction of designated special courts over
cases in violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 as provided under
Sec. 90 thereof.
c. Jurisdiction of designated RTC branches for
violations of intellectual property rights.
C. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, 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.
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 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.
Officials and employees with a salary grade of
27 or higher
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?
No. The law mentions salary grade 27 only in
relation to the following officials:
a. Officials of the executive branch, occupying a
position of regional director and higher
b. Members of Congress or officials thereof
c. All other national and local officials (those not
enumerated in Sec 4[a][1]) The salary grade has
no reference to provincial governors, vice
governors, etc. Those enumerated are subject
to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
regardless of salary grades.
Officers falling below salary grade 27
The first part of Sec. 4 of Pd 1606 covers only
officials of the executive branch with the salary
grade 27 and higher, the second part thereof,
however, 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 court.
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 jurisdiction of the
controlled corporations, state universities or courts
educational institutions or foundations. Application must Court must
show that the items determine that:
Note: It is not only the salary grade that sought are: 1. There is probable
determines the jurisdiction of the 1. Seizable by virtue cause that an offense
Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has of being connected has been committed;
jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in with the criminal and
P.D. 1606. activity; and 2. The person to be
2. Will be found in arrested has
Search and Seizure the place to be probably committed
searched it.
Nature of Search Warrant
Personal examination The judge is not
A search warrant is an order in writing of the complainant required to make
issued in the name of the People of the and the witnesses by personal
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a the judge is required examination, but he
must make an
peace officer, commanding him to search for
independent
personal property described therein and bring it
evaluation of the
before the court. records once
A search warrant proceeding is not a forwarded to the
criminal action, much less a civil action. It is a court, which must be
completed within 10
special criminal process, the order of issuance
days.
of which cannot and does not adjudicate the
Generally served only May be served at any
permanent status or character of the seized
during daytime, time of the day or
property. (Washington Distillers vs CA) unless there is night.
Stated otherwise, an application for a explicit direction in
search warrant is a special criminal process, the the warrant that it
may be served at any
power to issue of which is inherent in all courts.
time of the day or
It is not a criminal action, jurisdiction over
night
which is reposed in specific courts of indicated Expires in 10 days Valid until it is served
competence. from the date of
Distinguish from Warrant of Arrest issue
Search warrant does Issuance of a warrant
Search Warrant Warrant of Arrest not require the of arrest
(Rule 126) (Rule 113) existence of a presupposes the
Concerned with the Concerned with the criminal case; it may existence of a
search and seizure of arrest of a person so be issued prior to the pending criminal case
personal property that he may be made filing of the case that gives rise to the
subject of the to answer for the issuance of the
offense, stolen or commission of an warrant.
embezzled, fruits of offense; taking a
the offense or those person into custody
intended to be used and placing him Application for search warrant, where filed
to commit an offense within the
Sec. 2, Rule 126. Court where application for
search warrant shall be filed with the following:
(a) Any court within whose territorial
jurisdiction a crime was committed.
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the
application, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed
if the place of the commission of the
crime is known, or any court within the
judicial region where the warrant shall
be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already
been filed, the application shall only be
made in the court where the criminal action
is pending.
Probable Cause
In search warrant proceedings,
probable cause is defined as “such facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.”
Personal examination by judge of the
complainant and witnesses
Sec. 4, Rule 126. Requisites for issuing search
warrant. – A search warrant shall not issue
except upon probable cause in connection with
one specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the
things to be seized which may be anywhere in
the Philippines.
Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; record. –
The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce on facts personally known to them
and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits
submitted.
Search of house, room, or premise to be made
in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a
house, room, or any other premise shall be
made except in the presence of the:
1. Lawful occupant thereof or
2. any member of his family or in the
absence of the latter,
3. two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality.
Particularly of place to be searched and things
to be seized
The search warrant issued must
particularly describe the place to be searched
and persons or things to be seized in order for it
to be valid. The confiscated items, having been
found in a place other than the one described in
the search warrant, can be considered as fruits
of an invalid warrantless search, the
presentation of which as an evidence is a
violation of petitioner's constitutional guaranty
against unreasonable searches and seizure. (Del
Castillo v. People)
Personal Property to be Seized
Sec. 11. Delivery of property and inventory
thereof to court. –
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the
property seized to the judge who issued
the warrant, together with a true
inventory thereof duly verified under
oath. xxxx
The Supreme Court held that goods
seized on the basis of a search warrant issued
by the court under Rule 126 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure are in custodia legis,
subject to the control and disposition of the
court that issued the search warrant. (Tenorio
v. Court of Appeals)
Exceptions to search warrant requirement
The following are the instances when a
warrantless search is allowed:
(i) a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest;
(ii) search of evidence in “plain
view;”
(iii) search of a moving vehicle;
(iv) consented warrantless search;
(v) customs search;
(vi) a “stop and frisk” search; and
(vii) exigent and emergency
circumstances.
Search Incidental to a lawful arrest
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A
person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may
have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search
warrant.
In instances of warrantless searches
incidental to lawful arrests, the law requires
that there be first a lawful arrest before a
search can be made. The process cannot be
reversed. (People v. Nuevas, 2007)
If there are valid reasons to conduct
lawful search and seizure which thereafter
shows that the accused is currently committing
a crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in
flagrante delicto without need for warrant of
arrest. In such a case, where the warrantless
arrest was illegal, ipso jure, the warrantless
search incidental to illegal arrest is likewise
unlawful.
Plain View Doctrine
Under the “plain view doctrine,”
unlawful objects within the “plain view” of an
officer who has the right to be in the position to
have that view are subject to seizure and may
be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the
seizure of evidence in plain view must comply
with the following elements:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the
valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who had the right to
be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent; and
(d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search.
Search of a Moving Vehicle
The search of a moving vehicle is
recognized in this jurisdiction as a valid
exception to the requirement for a search
warrant. Such exception is easy to understand.
A search warrant may readily be obtained when
the search is made in a store, dwelling house or
other immobile structure. But it is impracticable
to obtain a warrant when the search is
conducted in a mobile ship, aircraft or other
motor vehicle since they can quickly be moved
out of the locality or jurisdiction where the
warrant must be sought.
When a vehicle is stopped and
subjected to an extensive search, such a
warrantless search is valid only as long as the
officers conducting the search have reasonable
or probable cause to believe before the search
that they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to
be searched.
Consented Warrantless Search
Consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but shown by clear and convincing
evidence. It must be voluntary in order to
validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the
consent must be unequivocal, specific,
intelligently given and uncontaminated by any
duress or coercion.
Whether consent to the search was in
fact voluntary is a question of fact to be
determined from the totality of all the
circumstances. Relevant to this determination
are the following characteristics of the person
giving consent and the environment in which
consent is given:
(1) the age of the defendant;
(2) whether the defendant was in a
public or a secluded location;
(3) whether the defendant objected to
the search or passively looked on;
(4) the education and intelligence of the
defendant;
(5) the presence of coercive police
procedures;
(6) the defendant’s belief that no
incriminating evidence would be found;
(7) the nature of the police questioning;
(8) the environment in which the
questioning took place; and
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective
state of the person consenting.
Customs Search
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. They may likewise
conduct a warrantless search of any vehicle or
person suspected of holding or conveying the
articles. (Salvador v. People, 2005)
A “Stop and Frisk” Search or Terry Searches
“Stop and frisk” searches can be
conducted either to prevent the occurrence of a
crime, or for the safety and self-preservation of
the police.
A stop and frisk is defined as the act of a
police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or
contraband. Its object is to determine the
identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain
the status quo momentarily while the police
officer seeks to obtain more information.
Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
The existence of emergency
circumstances depends on the peculiar facts of
each case. In one case, the Supreme Court
found that the military operatives, taking into
account the facts obtaining in this case, had
reasonable ground to believe that a crime was
being committed, and there was consequently
more than sufficient probable cause to warrant
their condition. Under the situation then
prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity
to apply for and secure a search warrant from
the courts. The trial judge himself manifested
that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was
conducted, his court was closed. Under such
urgency and exigency of the moment, a search
warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.
Remedies from unlawful search and seizure
 Motion to Quash a Search Warrant to
Suppress Evidence (Sec. 14, Rule 126)
 Writ of Habeas Corpus (Rule 102)
 A person without a warrant, after the
conduct of an inquest, has following
remedies: request for a preliminary
investigation, either before or after the
filing of the information, or apply for
bail.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Information - is an accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed
with the court.

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.

Preliminary investigation - is an inquiry

or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial.

Bail - is the security given for the

release of a person in custody of the
law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
to guarantee his appearance before any
court as required under the conditions
hereinafter specified. Bail may be given
in the form of corporate surety,
property bond, cash deposit, or
recognizance.

Evidence - is the means, sanctioned by

these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact.