Criminal jurisdiction | General Matters | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Disclaimer: The following discussion is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for guidance on specific factual or legal questions.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE PHILIPPINES

A. General Matters

1. Criminal Jurisdiction

Criminal jurisdiction refers to the power or authority of a court to hear, try, and decide criminal cases. In Philippine law, it is substantive (conferred by the Constitution or by statute) and cannot be conferred by consent or waived by the parties. Below is a meticulous, structured overview of the key concepts, legal bases, and jurisprudential rules governing criminal jurisdiction in the Philippines.

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

  1. Jurisdiction is conferred by law

    • In criminal cases, the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute (or the Constitution) in force at the time of the commission of the offense.
    • Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by agreement, nor can they waive a lack of jurisdiction.

  2. Jurisdiction cannot be presumed

    • It must be clearly vested in the court by law.
    • A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void.

  3. Distinguish between “jurisdiction” and “venue”

    • Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.
    • As a rule, criminal actions must be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed (Rule 110, Sec. 15, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure).
    • However, venue can sometimes vary by statute (e.g., special laws on cybercrimes, continuing crimes, etc.).

  4. Once vested, jurisdiction is retained

    • Once jurisdiction attaches to a court, it is retained until the case is finally resolved, even if a subsequent statute alters the jurisdictional rules, subject to certain exceptions (e.g., if a new law provides it shall apply retroactively).

II. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

  1. 1987 Constitution

    • The Constitution vests judicial power in the Supreme Court (SC) and in such lower courts as may be established by law (Art. VIII, Sec. 1).
    • It grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all lower courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 6).

  2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended

    • Organizes the hierarchy and jurisdiction of the lower courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Regional Trial Courts, Court of Appeals).
    • Modified by subsequent laws such as Republic Act Nos. 7691, 8369, etc.

  3. Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law)

    • Creates the Sandiganbayan and confers jurisdiction over certain offenses involving public officers.

  4. Other special laws

    • E.g., R.A. 10660 (further strengthening the functional and structural organization of the Sandiganbayan), R.A. 9282 (expanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals), and others that may assign exclusive or concurrent criminal jurisdiction to specific courts.

III. CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS AND THEIR CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

A. Supreme Court (SC)

  • The highest court; exercises appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases decided by the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Regional Trial Courts (in limited instances provided by law).
  • Has original jurisdiction in certain cases (e.g., issuance of writs such as the Writ of Amparo, Habeas Data, Prohibition, Mandamus, Certiorari), but generally does not conduct trials of criminal cases in the first instance.

B. Court of Appeals (CA)

  • Exercises appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts.
  • May also receive cases via Rule 65 petitions (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) involving criminal matters from lower courts or other tribunals.
  • No original jurisdiction to try criminal cases (except where authorized by special law or procedural rules, e.g., petitions for issuance of certain prerogative writs).

C. Sandiganbayan

  • A special appellate collegiate court created under PD 1606, as amended.
  • Exercises original jurisdiction over:
    1. Criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and other offenses committed by public officers and employees, where one or more of the accused are occupying positions classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher, or otherwise falling under its jurisdiction by law.
    2. Cases involving alleged violations of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 1379 (Unexplained Wealth), the Revised Penal Code provisions on bribery, and other offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office, depending on their salary grade and/or position.
  • Exercises appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of Regional Trial Courts in cases under its exclusive original jurisdiction but cognizable by the RTC due to lower salary grades (per R.A. 10660 and jurisprudential rules).

D. Regional Trial Courts (RTC)

  • Under BP 129 (as amended), the RTCs exercise original jurisdiction in criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body.
  • General Rule: RTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction for offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, or a fine above a threshold amount, or both. (See R.A. 7691.)
  • RTC also has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and criminal actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, but the criminal side is primarily determined by the penalty or the nature of the offense.
  • Has appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases decided by the lower courts (MTC, MeTC, MCTC) within its territorial region.

E. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC)

  • Collectively referred to as “first-level courts.”
  • Under R.A. 7691 (which expanded first-level courts’ jurisdiction), these courts generally have jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of fine or other imposable accessory penalties.
  • Specific laws can also assign certain offenses (e.g., violations of municipal ordinances, certain crimes under special laws with specific imposable penalties) to first-level courts.

F. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

  • Has exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction over tax-related crimes and offenses under the National Internal Revenue Code, Customs laws, and related statutes, pursuant to R.A. 1125 (as amended by R.A. 9282 and R.A. 9503).
  • Examples: criminal violations of tax laws, smuggling, etc.

G. Shari’a Courts

  • Organized under P.D. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws).
  • Their criminal jurisdiction is limited to offenses defined and punished under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws involving personal or family relations of Muslims, to the extent recognized by law.
  • Generally, Shari’a Courts do not exercise jurisdiction over all criminal offenses under the Revised Penal Code or special laws, unless specifically provided.

IV. DETERMINING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

  1. Nature of Offense or Imposable Penalty
    • Offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC (unless within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or CTA).
    • Offenses punishable by imprisonment of six (6) years or less fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC/MeTC/MCTC/MTCC.
    • Certain laws or rules may specifically place an offense in a particular court’s jurisdiction regardless of penalty (e.g., violation of municipal ordinances, minimal traffic violations, etc.).
  2. Nature of the Accused or Official Position (Sandiganbayan)
    • If the accused is a public officer with Salary Grade 27 or higher (or otherwise falling under the enumerations of PD 1606, as amended), and the offense is connected with the performance of official duties, the Sandiganbayan generally has original jurisdiction.

B. Territorial Jurisdiction (Venue)

  1. General Rule:
    • Criminal actions must be instituted and tried in the territory where the offense was committed. This is mandated by Rule 110, Sec. 15 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
    • The place of commission is typically determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
  2. Exceptions:
    • Continuing or Transitory Offenses: Where the acts material to the crime span different territorial jurisdictions (e.g., estafa committed partly in one city and partly in another, violation of B.P. 22 [Bouncing Checks Law], kidnapping or illegal detention continuing in multiple areas). Venue may be laid in any court where any of the essential ingredients occurred.
    • Cybercrimes: Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175), venue may lie in the place where the data/message was accessed, or where the offended party or the accused resides, or in other places specified by law.
    • Special Laws: Some statutes provide for special rules of venue (e.g., Human Security Act for terrorism offenses, intellectual property laws, etc.).

C. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused

  1. Acquired by Arrest or Voluntary Surrender:
    • The court must also acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused, typically by a valid arrest or the accused’s voluntary appearance or surrender.
  2. Waiver of Objections:
    • If the accused voluntarily enters a plea without questioning the legality of the arrest or the court’s jurisdiction over his person, he is deemed to have waived such objections.

V. EFFECT OF LACK OR LOSS OF JURISDICTION

  1. Null and Void Proceedings
    • When a court lacks jurisdiction over the offense or subject matter, its proceedings and judgment are null and void, and cannot be ratified even by the parties’ participation.
  2. Double Jeopardy Not Attached
    • A conviction or acquittal by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. It does not bar another prosecution for the same offense because double jeopardy does not attach to void proceedings.
  3. Exceptions
    • If the issue of jurisdiction is belatedly raised and the accused actively participated, courts may still dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds once discovered, because jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived.

VI. JURISPRUDENTIAL HIGHLIGHTS

  1. People v. Mariano – Reinforces the rule that jurisdiction over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the information and the penalty imposable by law at the time of the offense’s commission.
  2. People v. Sandiganbayan (and subsequent cases) – Clarifies the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over offenses committed by certain public officials in relation to their office.
  3. Copiosa v. Clemente – Illustrates that once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained despite subsequent statutory changes unless expressly provided otherwise by law.

VII. PRACTICAL POINTS AND LEGAL ETHICS

  1. Duty of Lawyers to Ascertain Jurisdiction

    • Upon receiving a case, defense counsel/prosecutor must check if the court indeed has jurisdiction over the offense.
    • A lawyer commits malpractice if they fail to timely raise obvious jurisdictional defects that could invalidate a proceeding.

  2. Timely Objections

    • Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage (even on appeal) because it cannot be waived.
    • Improper venue or lack of jurisdiction over the person, however, must be raised at the earliest opportunity, or it may be waived.

  3. Respect for the Courts

    • Counsel must show deference to the court’s authority while properly invoking defenses or motions to quash the information if the court indeed lacks jurisdiction.

  4. Ethical Obligation to the Client and the Court

    • Lawyers should avoid delaying tactics or frivolous motions that merely allege lack of jurisdiction in bad faith.
    • Genuine jurisdictional issues must be raised promptly and supported by law or jurisprudence.

VIII. SUMMARY

  1. Criminal jurisdiction in the Philippines is substantive and conferred exclusively by the Constitution or by legislation.
  2. Subject matter jurisdiction is determined by (a) the nature of the offense or the imposable penalty, (b) the classification/position of the accused (for graft or corruption cases), or (c) specific special laws.
  3. Territorial jurisdiction (venue) is generally where the crime was committed, subject to exceptions (continuing offenses, special rules).
  4. Personal jurisdiction over the accused is obtained by arrest or voluntary submission.
  5. Once jurisdiction is vested, it continues until final resolution, unless displaced by express legal provisions.
  6. Proceedings without jurisdiction are void and do not give rise to valid convictions or acquittals.

By carefully understanding and applying these rules, legal practitioners can ensure the orderly administration of justice and the proper observance of an accused’s constitutional rights.

Disclaimer Reiterated: The above exposition is a general overview of Philippine legal provisions on criminal jurisdiction. It does not substitute for professional legal advice tailored to specific cases. Always consult a licensed Philippine attorney for any legal concerns or case-specific guidance.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login