Criminal Procedure | Atty. Renato Galeon | EH410 a judge is not a neutral judge?
Sometimes the judge would
Pre-Midterm
Basic Principles
Definition
Criminal Procedure regulates the steps by which a person who
commits a crime is to be punished. (People v. Lacson 400 scra
267)
A process by which a case is instituted first before the
appropriate officer for the requisite preliminary investigation, if
required, or turned in the court of law if there is no requirement
for preliminary investigation then eventually filled in court.
How a crime is to be prosecuted; first before the fiscal then
eventually before the court. Process which deals with the rules
on how to prosecute a criminal action.
Atty. Galeon’s opinion:
Criminal Procedure not only outlines the steps by which a
person is to be prosecuted in court, likewise it proscribes the
manner by which we can defend a person who is prosecuted,
allegedly, for a crime because if you look at the definition of
what criminal procedure is as stated in the book of Riano it
would appear that crimpro is one-sided -Meant to secure a
possible conviction.
My reading of criminal procedure provides otherwise. It is also
meant to defend a person who is accused for a crime. Reason
for which there are provisions governing the filing of a motion
to quash (example: a motion to quash the information on
ground of double jeopardy), applying of bail, lawful arrest/
search or illegal arrest/ search.
When we study the rules of Criminal procedure we should not
take it as a one sided rule (in favor of the state) rather without
regard whether we are for the state or for the state or for the
defense. Neutral.
Adversarial or Accusatorial System
There are 2 main parties:
1. Prosecution
2. Defense
In the prosecution of a criminal case, the title is “People of the
Philippines v. Accused” not Offended party vs. Accused
because in the actual prosecution of an offense, the title of the
case is to be in the name of the Republic of the Ph v. the
accused.
The prosecution which alleges that a crime has been
committed by the accused and that the accused also has to
defend himself. Ordinarily, it is the prosecution who normally
presents its evidence first (burden of proof).
The defense does not have to prove its innocence, it only has
to create some doubt with respect to the version of the
prosecution and any such doubt will be resolved in favor of the
accused.
Different from an inquisitorial kind of justice - the judge would
participate not only in the hearing, but also in the gathering of
facts and evidence.
In the Philippines, the Judge is an impartial judge. He has to
act as a referee, although he has to render judgement in the
end or after trial. He is not expected to assist in any one of the
parties in the gathering of evidence/ facts. The judge merely
hears the case and receives the evidence presented by the
prosecution and by the defense.
Although you may profound that in some cases, the judge
would give questions to the witnesses. Isn’t this indicative that
give CLARIFICATORY questions. Does that mean that the
judge is already favoring one of the parties? Would it mean
that our criminal justice system is inquisitorial because the
judge is now somehow interested in the gathering of facts?
No. because when the judge gives clarificatory questions, it
does not mean that the judge is now favoring the prosecution
or the defense. The judge is there to fair out the case.
Rules in Interpretation of Criminal Procedure
1. Liberal Construction
2. Doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused
3. Court must observe the basic rules of due process
Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court
These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding.
In case of doubt in the interpretation of the rules of criminal
procedure, any or all doubts must be resolved in favor of
the accused.
Rationale: as provided in the constitution that the accused is to
be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
In actual conduct of a criminal case and in applying therein the
rules in criminal procedure the court must observe the basic
rules of due process. It is not enough that the court has
jurisdiction over the case. The court should also give the
parties procedural due process.
Requirements of Due Process in Judicial Proceedings
1. Impartial and competent court – Impartial tribunal clothed
with power to resolve matter that is pending before him
2. Jurisdiction – Tribunal must acquire jurisdiction of the
defendant, respondent, or the accused as the case may be
3. Hearing – Parties must be given an opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment – Decision must be rendered only after trial
(1) Impartial tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it
Rule 137 of the Rules of Court Section
1. Disqualification of judges – No judge or judicial officer shall
sit in any case in which he, or his wife, or child, is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he
is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he
has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel
when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and
entered upon record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify
himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other
than those mentioned above.
A judge is mandated to inhibit himself in a case where he has
pecuniary interest therein, as when the case involves not just
himself, but also his wife or any of his children.
Where that happens that the case involves the wife or the child
of the judge, the judge, consistent to the requirement of
impartiality of the tribunal must inhibit himself from handling the
case.
Similarly, if the judge is related to any of the parties within the
sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, then the judge
must also inhibit himself.
Likewise, if the judge is related to any of the lawyers
appearing in the case within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, then the judge must also inhibit
himself.
Verily, when the case involves a situation where the judge was
once to be the administrator or guardian of any of the
parties therein, then the judge should likewise inhibit himself
from handling the case.
If it happens that the judge got promoted to the higher court
and he is to review his own decision that he rendered while he
was a judge of an inferior court, then the judge must also
inhibit himself from deciding that case on appeal.
What if you are a lawyer and you perceive the judge to be
biased against your opponent but you cannot advance any
of the ground mentioned under Rule 137, how will you
seek for the inhibition of the judge?
If you cannot find a ground, resort to legal engineering
(2) Jurisdiction – Tribunal must acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, respondent, or the accused
Criminal cases – jurisdiction is acquired over the person
accused the moment the accused is already being
ARRESTED and not only upon arraignment.
But even when the accused has not been lawfully arrested, but
subsequently he appears during arraignment and
participated therein, therefore the accused submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court.
When the accused has not been arrested, but subsequently he
filed a motion asking for an affirmative relief from the
court. (ex: he applied petition for bail), accused thereby
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused
upon his lawful arrest OR when the accused voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
Atty. G’s advice: Submit voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the
court - file petition for bail if the offense is bailable. If not, don’t
commit the mistake of submitting to the jurisdiction of the court.
Question: What if the accused files a motion to quash the
information on the ground that the case should be dismissed
because of double jeopardy? Does that mean that the accused
has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the court?
Answer: Yes.
Motion to quash the information on the ground that the court
has not lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person or his
arrest is illegal. Is he submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the
court?
Answer: No.
General Rule: When the accused filed a motion asking for
affirmatives relief from the court, he thereby submits himself to
the jurisdiction of the court voluntarily.
Exception:
1. special appearance to question the court’s jurisdiction
over the person of the accused does not constitute
voluntary appearance (note: not deemed waiver of
right to question legality of arrest)
2. Motion to quash the warrant of arrest because it is the
very legality of the court to process forcing the
submission of the person of the accused (note: not
deemed waiver of right to question legality of arrest)
(3) Hearing – Parties must be given an opportunity to be
heard
When we speak of opportunity to be heard, that doesn’t mean
that the accused must and should present his evidence.
It is enough that the accused has been given the opportunity to
be heard such that if the accused feters away with the chance
given him to present his evidence then he can no longer say
that he is denied of procedural due process.
Example:
After the prosecution, in the case the defense did not present
his evidence, the court renders judgement of conviction
because accused failed to present his evidence and the
evidence presented by the prosecution is more than proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
Can the accused allege that he was denied procedural due
process because he failed to present evidence?
No. because Due process simply requires that the accused
has been given the opportunity to be heard. If the accused
does not avail of the opportunity to be heard then he cannot
declare later on that he was denied due process. (Rule on
Merisi applies)
For instance, in the presentation of evidence the accused
without asking for leave of court filed a demurrer asking that
the case be dismissed allegedly on the ground that the
evidence for the prosecution is not sufficient to sustain a
conviction. If he fails in that move then he is already precluded
to present his evidence because he files a demurrer of
evidence without asking for leave of court. And he cannot say
he was denied due process.
(4) Judgement must be rendered only after trial
All the parties (prosecution and defense) must be heard by the
court before the court renders a judgement, otherwise any
decision may be considered as invalid for being violative of
procedural due process.
3 Requirements before the court could proceed to hear a
criminal case:
it is imperative that the court first acquire jurisdiction over the:
1. person of the accused,
2. territory where the offense is committed,
3. subject matter.
Jurisdiction over the Territory where the offense is
committed:
GENERAL RULE: Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional.
The territory for each and every court is set forth and
determined by law.
Example: If the offense is committed in Lapu-Lapu, the criminal
case, as a rule, must be filed before the appropriate court in
Lapu-Lapu City.

Sec. 15, Rule 110 Rules of Court: the court must have
jurisdiction over the offense and it is imperative that the offense
must have been committed or any of its essential elements
must be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
EXCEPTION (the court has jurisdiction to try offenses
committed not in place where the offense was committed):
1. The Supreme Court orders a change of venue or place
of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice (Sec 5 par 4, Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution).
2. Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code (SFION):
a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
Ship or airship;
● It is sufficient that the ship or airship is
registered under the Philippine laws. Not
necessarily owned by filipinos.
b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the
Philippines Islands;
● It can be filed with any courts in the
Philippines.
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned above;
d. While being public officers and employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
e. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations (Arts. 114-121
RPC).
i. Treason
ii. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
iii. Misprision of treason
iv. Espionage
v. Inciting to war and giving motives for
reprisal
vi. Violation of neutrality
vii. Correspondence with hostile country
viii. Flight to enemy’s country.
ix. Piracy
x. Mutiny on the high seas
3. Where the offense is written defamation/Libel (Article
360 Revised Penal Code).
● May be filed in the RTC of the province or city
where the alleged libelous article was first
printed and published.
● If the offended party is a public officer: it may be
prosecuted or tried in a court where the public
officer holds office at the time of the commission
of the offense.
● If the offended party is a private individual: the
case may be filed in the proper court of the place
where the offended party resides at the time of
the first publication and printing of the libelous
article.
Example: There was a libelous article against B which was
published in Cebu City. At the time of the publication of the
libelous article, B was residing in Leyte.
Question: Can B file a case in Cebu City?
Answer: YES (following the general rule).
Question: Can B file a case in Leyte?
Answer: YES (Exception to the general rule - Article 360 of
RPC).
4. The case is cognizable by Sandiganbayan.
5. Sec. 15, par. B, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court:
Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or
other public or private vehicle in the course of its
trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in
the court of any municipality or territory where such
train, aircraft, or other vehicle passed during its trip,
including the place of its departure and arrival.
● This provision will only apply if the offense is
committed while the train, aircraft, or other
vehicle, whether in public or private, is in transit.
6. Sec. 15, par. C, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court:
Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in
the course of its voyage, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the first port of
entry or of any municipality or territory where the
vessel passed during such voyage, subject to the
generally accepted principles of international law.
Sec. 15, Par B
Example:
1. A bus was Traveling from Bogo City to Cebu City, when a
Muslim brother stabbed a Conductor for waking him up in
every bus stop asking for him to present his ticket. Take Note
the Trip from Bogo City to Cebu City, the Bus may pass
through other Municipalities such as Carmen, Consolacion,
Liloan, Danao, Mandaue, etc. May the criminal offense be filed
in Cebu city? Yes.
Danao city? Yes. The criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of any municipality or territory where such
train, aircraft, or other vehicle passed during its trip, including
the place of its departure and arrival.
2. A bus is bound for Bogo City to Cebu City, while inside the
bus nag-inom ang driver ug ang conductor. Nagaway kay it
turned out they had the same girlfriend. The conductor stabbed
to death the driver. The stabbing incident happened inside the
bus. Take note, the bus was to leave Bogo City bound for
Cebu City the next day. The bus was still parking in Bogo city
when they had an altercation. In that situation, can you file the
case in Cebu city?
Answer: No, because the situation contemplated in Sec 15,
par. B, Rule 110 ROC would only apply if the offense is
committed while the train, aircraft, or a vehicle (private or
public) is IN TRANSIT/ TRAVELING.
Sec. 15, Par C
Example:
A small boat is traveling from Cebu City to Bato, Leyte. Was on
its voyage when a crime was committed thereon involving 2
passengers. A stabbing incident happened while the vessel
was actually in the vicinity of Camotes island. Can you file a
case in Bato, Leyte even while the stabbing incident happened
while the vessel was in the waters of camotes island?
Yes. Considering that Bato, Leyte is the First port of entry, it
being the port of destination then undoubtedly the case may be
filed before the appropriate court of Bato, Leyte.
But instead of filing the case in the court of Bato, Leyte. Can
the heirs of the private complainant file a case before the court
of Danao? (Camotes island’s jurisdiction is part of Danao City)
Yes.
General Rule: Venue is jurisdictional in Criminal proceedings.
Such that when a case is filed in a court which has no territorial
jurisdiction over the case and the situation does not fall upon
the purview of the exceptional circumstances that we have
mentioned then if you are the accused, you can file a motion to
quash the information for want of jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
Follow up:
Change of Venue by order of the Supreme Court.
May be done NOT upon the instance of prosecution.
Sometimes it can also be availed of by the .. 1:01:50
 in Manila. The issuing court is an RTC but we can actually
apply for bail here in Cebu City. We need not go to Manila to
put up bail.
Criminal Jurisdiction also necessitates that the court must have Normally, any such application for bail has to be filed and
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. It is not enough should be acted upon by the RTC. but if it happens that all the
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the RTC judges are absent because they were attending a
accused, it is also not enough that the court has jurisdiction seminar, application for bail may be acted upon by a judge of
over the territory where the offense has been committed. the 1st level courts.
This holds true only in situations where the RTC judges are not
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter of the case: around or not available.
It is the law which prescribes/ defines the jurisdiction of the
courts.
Take note: not for the parties to stipulate the jurisdiction when Regional Trial Court:
it comes to handling criminal cases. 1. Cases NOT falling under the enumerated cases, would
have to be tried by the higher court which is the RTC
except for those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
In civil cases: the parties are free to stipulate with respect to
the case in the court to take cognizance of a dispute.
Offenses with imposable penalty of imprisonment of 6 years
and up. Except those cognizable under the exclusive
There are cases, which under the law, it must and should be
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
tried only by certain courts. Such as:
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts - situated in far flung
2. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC
areas.
within its territorial jurisdiction.
Municipal Trial Courts
3. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws such
Metropolitan Trial Courts
as:
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
a. Jurisdiction over criminal and civil aspects of
Regional Trial Courts
Written defamation (Art. 360 RPC)
Sandiganbayan
b. Jurisdiction of designated special courts over
cases in violation of the Comprehensive
1st level courts: (MTC, MCTC, MTCC, MeTC)
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165)
1. Violations of City and/or Municipal ordinances.
Sec. 90
2. Offenses punishable with imprisonment NOT
c. Jurisdiction of designated RTC branches for
exceeding 6 years. Regardless of the fine that may be
violations of Intellectual Property Rights
imposed and regardless of the civil liability arising from
(RA 8293)
the offense. (What is pivotal is range of the imposable
d. Jurisdiction to try all cases on Money
penalty of imprisonment NOT penalty imposed)
laundering. However, those committed by
public officers and private persons, who are
But, there are cases where the imposable penalty is not
in conspiracy with such public officers, shall
exceeding 6 years but jurisdiction is not with the 1st level
be under the jurisdiction of the
courts:
Sandiganbayan. (RA 9160)
Example: libel (Art. 360 RPC) -RTC
Indirect Bribery (Art. 210 RPC) -Sandiganbayan
4. Special Jurisdiction of certain branches to handle
exclusive criminal cases as may be determined by the
3. Offenses/ cases where the imposable penalty is a fine
Supreme Court.
NOT exceeding P4,000.00.
5. Original Jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of
4. Violation of BP 22. (notwithstanding the amount of the
Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Quo warranto,
check)
Habeas Corpus and Injunction enforceable in any part
of their respective regions.
Example: the face value of the check is P500,000.00; it would
now appear that the penalty imposable now is P1M. Is the
When a case is cognizable before the MTC but you filed it with
case now cognizable with MTC? Where the amount of the fine
the RTC, the case may be dismissed. And in like manner, you
is P1M.
cannot invoke double jeopardy even if you are accused in such
Answer: Yes. Still with the 1st level courts. Notwithstanding the
particular case.
amount of the fine. (exception to #3) Amount of the fine is
immaterial.
Sandiganbayan:
(P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 7975 and R.A 8249)
5. Cases falling under the rules of Civil Procedure.
Section 4. Jurisdiction - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
Cases falling under Civil Procedure are those that have
original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
imposable penalty not exceeding 6 years of imprisonment.
Example: Violation of traffic rules,
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
Violation of rental law,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Damage to property through criminal negligence
Act, and Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec.
imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.00
2, Title 7, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code, where
Reckless imprudence where the imposable fine does
one or more of the accused are officials occupying the
not exceed 10,000.00
following positions in the government, whether in a
permanent, acting, or interim capacity, at the time of the
6. Application for bail where the judge of the RTC is not
commission of the offense:
around. It may be acted upon by the judges of the MTC.
Example: there is a warrant of arrest issued against your client
which is issued in the court of Manila because the case is filed
 (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as grade 27 and higher
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurer,
assessors, engineers, and other city
department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and
higher;
(d) Philippine Army and air force colonels,
naval captains, and all other officers of
higher rank;
(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police
while occupying the position of provincial
director and those holding the rank of
senior superintendent or higher;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the office of the ombudsman, and special
prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, director or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations.
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade “27” and up;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of
the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as
Grade “27” and higher.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by 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 E.O No. 1, 2, 14, and 14-a.
In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade “27” or higher, as
prescribed in the said RA 6758, or military and PNP officers
mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be
vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court, as the case
may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions provided in
B.P. 129, as amended.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of the
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 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 Exclusive Order No. 1,2,14,14-a, issued in 1986:
Provided, that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be
exclusive of the Supreme Court.
The procedure prescribed in BP 129, as well as the
implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated
and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals and
petitions for the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and
petitions for review field with Sandiganbayan. In all cases
elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan
to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman through
its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the
Philippines except in cases filed pursuant to EO No. 1,2,14,14-
a, issued in 1986.
In case private individuals are charged as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
employees, including those employed in government-owned or
controlled corporations, they shall be tried with said public
officers and employees in the proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.
_________________________________________________
Subido case:
What is pivotal is the position held by the accused at the time
of the commission of the offense. Not necessarily on the date
of the filing of the information.
Jurisdiction of the court will have to be determined at the time
of the commission of the crime.
Lacson case:
- It is not necessary that all of the accused hold the
position of paragraph A. it is enough that one of the
accused falls under the classifications mentioned in
paragraph A.
A significant amendment introduced by R.A. 8249
was the removal of the word “Principal” before the word
accused.
Thus, Official or employee no longer has to be a principal
accused. He may simply be an accomplice, or accessory for
the Sandiganbayan to take cognizance of the case as long as
impleaded in the case.
It is not required in the law that the offender is holding a salary
grade 27, there are only 3 provisions here which require that
the accused must acquire a position classified as salary grade
27 or higher, under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989:
● Sec 4 (a)(1)
● Sec 4 (a)(2)
● Sec 4 (a)(5)
In other words, the officials falling under sec. 4 (a)(1)(a-g) need
not fall under a position with salary grade 27.
Serana vs. Sandiganbayan
- Serana was not holding a position with Salary grade
27, but considering that her situation falls under Sec 4
(a) which is cognizable under Sandiganbayan. Thus,
if their offense falls under Sec 4 par. A, it is enough
for the Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction over the
case.
Example:
1.)
Offense: RA 3019 (falls under Sec. 4 par. a)
Offender (Position): Brgy. Captain (not among those
enumerated)
Is the case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan? No. The case
will be tried by the regular courts (MTC/RTC) as the case may
be.
Reason: Notwithstanding that the offense falls under Sec 4,
par a, the position of barangay captain does not fall under the
classification of Sec. 4, par. A. thus, the regular courts have
jurisdiction over the case, and not the Sandiganbayan.
However, the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over the case.
2.)
Offense: does not fall under sec. 4 par. A
Offender (position): falls under sec. 4 par. A
Is the case cognizable by the Sandigabayan? YES. it falls
under Sec. 4, par. B.
Sec. 4 (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.
Requisites for Sec. 4, par. B to apply:
1. The offender falls under the classifications mentioned
in Sec. 4, par. A; and
2. The offense must be committed in relation to their
office.
Subido Case:
Subido was charged with Arbitrary detention. SC held that
while the offense does not fall under the purview of sec. 4, par.
A, but holds a position mentioned under sec. 4,(a), and the
offense committed was in relation to his office, the case is still
cognizable by Sandiganbayan because it is covered in section
4, (b).
Pactolin Case:
Pactolin is a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Misamis, and he was convicted with falsification of public
document. SC said that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over the case because his position was under sec. 4 (a)(1),
and Pactolin abused his position which falls under Sec 4(b).
Take note:
General Rule: Municipal Mayors cannot be tried with the
Sandigabayan.
Exception: if he is a co-conspirator with the accused falling
under Sec. 4(a).
3.)
Offense: Malversation of Public funds (committed in relation to
their office)
Offender: Municipal Mayor (does not fall under sec 4[a])
Is the case cognizable by the Sandiganabayan? No.
Notwithstanding that the offense was committed in relation to
the office, the position of the offender does not fall under sec.
4(a). (take note of the requisites of Sec 4[b]). Therefore, the
offense is cognizable with the MTC/RTC.
Sanchez vs. Demetriou
- The position is included under sec 4(a), but the
offense of homicide does not fall under sec. 4(a). It
will not also fall under Sec. 4(b) because the offense
committed was NOT in relation to his office. Thus, the
case will be tried in the regular courts (RTC).
- Can he appeal the case in the Sandiganbayan?
- No. the appeal will be in CA or SC because it is
as if that the offense was committed in his
private capacity.
Lacson vs Sandiganbayan
- SC held that if the offense is alien to the public
function, then it is necessary to establish in the
allegations or information the intimacy between the
offense and the public position. It must be established
that the offense committed was in relation to his
office.
- There must be a vivid and/or categorical statement
tending to establish the connection.
- Mere casual averment is done in relation to public
office is not enough. (RTC)
But if the offense falling under Sec. 4(b) has in its constituent
element the public position or function, then there is no need
that the criminal information must contain that elaborate
assertion. (Pactulin case)
Ex: Malversation of public funds.
Esteban v. Sandiganbayan
- Information was amended several times only to
satisfy the requirement that there should be a
categorical assertion to establish the intimacy of the
offense and the public office.
Take note: For as long as the accused has not yet been
arraigned, then the information may be amended as many
times as necessary. Otherwise, accused may invoke double
jeopardy.
There was a case where originally Sandiganbayan had no
jurisdiction over the offense but it was amended so the
accused cried foul said that the amendment was particularly
done if only to confer Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over the
case.
General Rule: You, as an accused, may object.
Court could not validly render judgement because it has no
jurisdiction over the offense.
Exception: if you are in estoppel.
Appeals taken cognizance by Sandiganbayan:
Sandiganbayan can issue: Writs of Mandamus, Certiorari,
Prohibition, habeas corpus, injunctions and other writs, quo
warranto for violation of EO No. 1,2, 14, 14-a
Take note:
Cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
MTC, or RTC in cases of where the offender does not hold any
position included in the enumeration or cases where a public
officer commits an offense not relation to his office or
paragraph B, the case is tried by the Sandiganbayan, MTC, or
RTC as the case maybe, the Civil aspect of the case is
deemed instituted with the criminal case. No reservation of
Civil cases shall be allowed. Where the Civil aspect of the
case had been instituted before the criminal case, then it had
to be held in abeyance to be consolidated with the criminal
case.
Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction
Be guided with the provision in Sec. 4 of PD 1606, as
amended.
Any provision of law or Rules of court to the contrary,
notwithstanding the criminal action and the corresponding civil
action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be
simultaneously instituted with and duly determined together
with the same proceedings by the sandiganbayan or
appropriate courts.
Where a civil action had been instituted separately or ahead of
the institution of the criminal case but no decision has been
rendered therein and the criminal case is still … filed with the
sandiganbayan (45:50)
Sandiganbayan, MTC, or RTC has primary jurisdiction not only
of the criminal aspect but also the civil aspect of a particular
case.
Rationale: To avoid a situation where the rulings may be
conflicting. To avoid multiplicity of action.
PD 1606, Sec. 4 (C)
Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection
with E.O No. 1, 2, 14, and 14-a shall be under the jurisdiction
of the sandiganbayan.
Ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their immediate family,
relatives, subordinates, and close associates, without
distinction of their private or public status. Sandiganbayan still
has jurisdiction over the offense.
Review:
3 categories of the Jurisdiction of Sandiganabayan, PD 1606 in
respect to offenses which it has to try.
1. Par. A - specifies the offense
2. Par. B - dealing with other offenses but committed by
persons enumerated in par. A
3. Civil or criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with EO 1, 2, 14, 14-a
There are other cases provided by special laws, which are
under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan; cases other than
those enumerated or covered by PD 1606, as amended by RA
7975 and PD 8249.
1. Violation of Anti-Money Laundering Act (RA 9160)
2. Violation of Plunder Law (RA 7080)
Illustrations:
A.Crime: RA 3019 (Sec 4(a)
1. Offender: city mayor
SB ————>SC
2.Offender: brgy captain
RTC/MTC————>SB————>SC
3.Public office not mentioned in sec 4(A) –but any position
holding Salary Grade 27
SB ————>SC
B. Another offense
1.Offender: city mayor
SB ————>SC
2.Offender: brgy captain
RTC/MTC————>SB————>SC
C.Crime: Another offense (ie. Murder)
1.Offender: city mayor but the offense is committed in relation
to his office; Sec 4(b) applies
SB ————>SC
2.City mayor but offense not in relation to his public office
(done in his private capacity)
RTC————>SB————>SC
How will we know if this other offense is committed in relation
to his office?
- check the allegation in the information
Qualify:
when public position is constituent element
–no need to establish intimacy in the information “abuse of his
public office or in relation to his public office.”
ie. Malversation of public funds
Pactolin case-the information need not to have an elaborate
information to establish intimacy
If public position is not a constituent element-information must
have the elaborate information to establish intimacy
(Lacson case) info merely stated was done in relation to the
public office held by lacson and others
SC: not enough there has to be a vivid and categorical
statements to establish the intimacy of the offense like in the
case of PP vs. Montejo ie. if info that is categorical, it
established how public office was used to perpetrate crime
Take note: lacson holds a position in Sec 4A but the crime was
murder and the info is not enough to establish intimacy then
the case should be tried by the RTC not by the SB.
Esteban Case- judge was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness
and Sexual Harassment -must establish the intimate
connection
For this be guided with PP vs. Montejo vis-à-vis Lacson case
to be guided.
NOTE;Civil aspect deemed instituted with criminal action if no
reservation has been made
Sec 4(C)criminal and civil aspects violating EO 1,2,14 and 14-
A all pertain to ill-gotten wealth of Marcos – even though
private or public person trial should be conducted with SB
On some special laws: SB has exclusive jurisdiction ie.. Anti
money laundering act RA 9160 and plunder RA 7060
CAVEAT: jurisdiction of SB is not exclusive on the list provided
for Sec 4(A) PD 1606
Sandiganbayan cases-further appeal may be done in SC but
there are cases that even tho cognizable by SB-> RTC still
Appeal flow and remedies

SB ————>SC
(REMEDY:notice of appeal if death is the penalty: Automatic
review)

RTC/MTC————>SB————>SC
(REMEDY:notice of appeal for SB then to SC is Petition for
Review under Rule 45)

MTC————>SB————>SC
(MTC to RTC REMEDY: Notice of appeal,
RTC to SB REMEDY:Petition for Review under Rule 42
SB to SC REMEDY: Petition for Review under Rule 45)
Rule 65- grave abuse of discretion

ORDINARY CRIMINAL CASES (not cognizable by SB)

remedies:

MTC——————>RTC——————>SB———————>SC
Notice of appeal Petition for review Petition for review
(Rule 122 RCC) ( Rule 42) (Rule
45)

RTC—————————>SB——————————>SC
Notice of appeal Petition for review
(Rule 122 RCC) (Rule 45) EXPN:
death no need

EXPN:Death penalty(CA to SC)

EXCEPTIONS:
If death-no need notice
If reclusion perpetua or life- notice of appeal not petition for
review
So if death, RTC (no need notice of appeal)---CA to SC (no
need notice of appeal still)
So Reclusion Perpetua,RTC to CA (notice of appeal) CA to SC
(notice of appeal NOT petition for review under Rule 45)