REMEDIAL LAW February 5, 2020

REVIEW 2
WHAT ARE THE
REQUISITE
S FOR THE
EXERCISE OF
CRIMINAL
REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE
OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
(1) The court must have
jurisdiction over the offense or
subject matter, and
(2) The court must have
jurisdiction over the person of
the accused.
 DISTINGUISH
JURISDICTION OVER
THE OFFENSE
VS.
OVER THE PERSON
OF THE ACCUSED
 JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE
VS. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
THE ACCUSED

Over the offense (subject matter)

- the power of a court to try a criminal
case
Over the person of the accused
-the power of a court to try a case with
binding effect to the accused
Over the offense (subject matter)
- conferred by law
Over the person of the accused
- obtained by the arrest of the accused
or his voluntary surrender or
appearance in court
 HOW DOES A COURT ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED?
* Arrest
* Voluntary appearance in court
- filing of a pleading or a
motion in court asking for
affirmative relief
Bar Q: Jose, Alberto and Romeo were
charged with murder. Upon filing of the
information, the RTC judge issued the
warrants for their arrest. Learning of
the issuance of the warrants, the three
accused jointly filed a motion for
reinvestigation and for the recall of the
warrants of arrest. On the date set for
hearing of their motion, none of the
accused showed up in court for fear of
being arrested. The RTC judge denied
their motion because the RTC did not
 The accused voluntarily appeared when
they filed the motion asking for
affirmative relief, i.e., motion for
reinvestigation, motion to quash…
Miranda vs. Tuliao, March 31, 2006
Motion to quash a W/A – resolution thereof
does not require a court to have jurisdiction
over the person of the accused
Motion for reinvestigation – resolution
thereof also does not require that the
accused be in the custody of the law
CASE: The accused in a criminal
case for falsification of public
document filed a motion for
redetermination of probable
cause before the MTC. The MTC
denied the motion on the ground
that it did not have jurisdiction
over the person of the accused
who had not yet been arrested.
 One who seeks affirmative relief from a
court is deemed to have submitted his
person to the jurisdiction of the court.

David vs. Agbay, March 18, 2015

While custody of the law is required before
a court can act upon a bail application, it
is not required for the adjudication of
other reliefs where the mere application
constitutes a submission of one’s person
to the court’s jurisdiction.
CASE: The accused filed a motion to quash
precisely and exclusively to challenge the
jurisdiction of the court over his person.

When the accused filed a motion to quash

in court, was the accused deemed to have
made a voluntary appearance in court?
CASE: An accused former mayor was
charged before the Sandiganbayan with
malversation of public funds through
falsification of public documents. The
amount alleged to have been malversed was
P274,000. Under Article 217(4) of the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty for
malversation of public funds if the amount
involved exceeds P22,000.00 shall be
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua. Article 48 which
provides the penalty for complex crimes
states that the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed in its maximum
 The Sandiganbayan issued an arrest
order adopting the “no bail”
recommendation of the Ombudsman.
The accused, who was still at large,
caused the filing of a Motion to Set
Aside No Bail Recommendation and
to Fix the Amount of Bail. The
Ombudsman argued that the
Sandiganbayan cannot grant
affirmative relief to the accused who
was at large. Was the Ombudsman
correct?
Miranda vs. Tuliao
An affirmative relief may be obtained
from the court despite the accused being
still at-large.
People vs. Valdez, December 8, 2015
Except in petition for bail, custody of the
law is not required for the adjudication of
reliefs sought by the accused (such as no
bail recommendation and to fix the amount
of bail in this case) where the mere
application therefor constitutes a waiver of
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF
COURTS
MTC
RTC
Regular
Family Courts
Special Commercial Courts
Sandiganbayan
Court of Appeals
Court of Tax Appeals
Supreme Court
 WHAT CASES BEFORE THE
MTC ARE GOVERNED BY THE
RULE ON SUMMARY
PROCEDURE
1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations.
2. Violations of the rental law.
3. Violations of municipal and city ordinances.
4. Violations of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).
5. All other criminal cases where the penalty is imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or a fine not exceeding P1,000.00, or
both.
6. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.
MAY INJUNCTION LIE
TO RESTRAIN
CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION?
 GENERAL RULE:
NO. INJUNCTION MAY NOT LIE TO RESTRAIN
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
Exceptions:
1. Necessary to protect the constitutional rights of the
accused
2. Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or
to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
3. There is a prejudicial question which is sub judice
4. The acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority
5. The prosecution is under an invalid law or regulation
Exceptions… continuation
6. There is double jeopardy
7. Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. Case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. Charges are manifestly false and motivated
by the lust for vengeance
10. Clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground
has been denied
Brocka vs. Enrile, December 10, 1990

We, therefore, rule that where there is manifest bad

faith that accompanies the filing of criminal charges
(Illegal assembly & Inciting to sedition), as in the
instant case where Brocka, et al., were barred from
enjoying provisional release until such time that
charges were filed, and where a sham preliminary
investigation was hastily conducted, charges that
are filed as a result should lawfully be enjoined.
 RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF
OFFENSE
Review:
 What is criminal procedure?
 How are the rules of
criminal procedure
construed?
Criminal procedure
- the procedure for the
apprehension and prosecution of
persons accused of any crime
Construction of CPR
-in favor of the accused and strictly
construed against the State
 HOW ARE
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
INSTITUTED?
INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Preliminary Investigation (P.I.) is required
- filing the complaint with the proper
officer for the purpose of P.I.
P.I. is not required
- filing the complaint or information
directly with the MTC, or filing 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. (S1
R110)
WHAT IS THE EFFECT
OF THE INSTITUTION
OF
THE CRIMINAL
ACTION?
EFFECT OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE
CRIMINAL ACTION
- interrupts the running of the prescriptive
period of the offense charged
The period of prescription commences to run
from the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the
authorities or their agents, and shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information. (Art. 91, RPC)
CASE: The accused was charged with violating a
municipal ordinance by quarrying without a
permit on May 11, 1990. A complaint was filed
by the police with the prosecutor’s office on May
30, 1990 but the corresponding information was
filed with the municipal trial court only on
October 2, 1990. The accused filed a motion to
quash on the ground of prescription, pointing
out that under Act No. 3326, violations penalized
by ordinances shall prescribe after two months
from the commission of the offense and the
information was filed in court after more than 60
days from its commission. The prosecution on
the other hand argued that the filing of the
complaint with the prosecutor’s office
Yes.
The offense had prescribed since the
information was filed in court only on October
2, 1990 or more than 2 months from the
commission of the offense on May 11, 1990.
Zaldivia vs. Reyes (1992)
Act No. 8326 governs prescriptive period for
violations of special laws and ordinances. Sec.
2… the period of prescription shall be
suspended “when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty party.”
proceedings = judicial proceedings
Act No. 3326 (An Act to Establish Periods of
Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special
Acts xxx)
S1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, xxx,
prescribe in accordance with the following rules:
(a)after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by
imprisonment of not more than one month, or both;
(b)after 4 years for 1mo. -2 years;
(c)after 8 years for 2yrs 1 day to 6 yrs;
(d)after 12 years, for > 6 years..
Violations penalized by municipal ordinances
shall prescribe after two months.
S2. The prescription shall be interrupted when
CASE: Tongson (T) issued checks in favor of
Panaguiton (P). When presented for payment, the
checks were dishonored on March 18, 1993 for
insufficiency of funds. Demands for payments by
P went unheeded. On August 24, 1995, P filed a
complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against T
before the QCPO. In 1999, the QCPO dismissed P’s
complaint on the ground that the action had
already prescribed pursuant to Act No. 3326
which provides that violations of special laws
which do not provided for their own prescriptive
periods shall prescribe in four years unless
interrupted by the institution of judicial
proceedings. According to the QCPO, since it was
more than 4 years from March 18, 1993 and the
No.
Panaguiton vs. DOJ (2008)
The filing of the complaint with the
prosecutor’s office already tolled the running
of the prescriptive period even if the offense is
for the violation of a special law.
The word “proceedings” in S2 of Act 3326 by
which prescription is interrupted should be
deemed to refer to proceedings both judicial
or executive in character.
CASE: On May 17, 2003, Lidua parked his car in a
no-parking zone in Baguio City. Jadewell Parking
Systems put clamps on Lidua’s wheel in order to
immobilize the car. Lidua removed the clamps and
drove away with them. On May 23, 2003 Jadewell
filed a complaint-affidavit for robbery with the
BCPO against Lidua. After P.I., the prosecutor
found probable cause for violation of BC
Ordinance No. 3-2000 (rather than robbery)
against Lidua and filed the information with the
MTC of Baguio City on October 2, 2003. Lidua filed
a motion to quash on the ground of extinction of
the criminal liability invoking Act No. 3326. The
Yes.
Zaldivia vs. Reyes is applicable. Since the
information was filed with the court after the lapse
of two months from the commission of the
offense, then the criminal action was extinguished
by prescription. (Jadewell Parking Systems Corp.
vs. Lidua [2013])

In Jadewell, the Court distinguished the facts of

the case from Panaguiton (2008) and People vs.
Pangilinan (2012), which involved the violation of
a special law, i.e., B.P. Blg. 22.