Jurisdiction over subject matter and jurisdiction over person of the accused | General Matters | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion on Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter and Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused under Philippine criminal procedure. This overview is based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended), the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and pertinent jurisprudence. While this presentation strives to be extensive and meticulous, it is still a general discussion and should not be taken as legal advice for specific cases.

I. GENERAL CONCEPT OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

In Philippine criminal law and procedure, jurisdiction refers to the power or authority of a court to hear and decide a criminal action. It entails two principal aspects in criminal proceedings:

  1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter (i.e., over the offense charged)
  2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

Without valid jurisdiction over both aspects, a court cannot validly hear and decide a criminal case; any judgment rendered would be void.

II. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

A. Definition

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in criminal cases is the court’s legal power to try and decide a particular offense or violation of penal law. This is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the Complaint or Information.

B. How Determined

  1. By Law

    • In the Philippines, jurisdiction over criminal cases is conferred exclusively by law and cannot be implied or waived.
    • Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended) and special laws outline which courts have jurisdiction over specific offenses.

  2. By the Allegations in the Complaint or Information

    • The nature of the offense, as stated in the Complaint or Information, determines which court has jurisdiction.
    • Neither the caption nor the designation of the offense alone is conclusive; rather, it is the recital of facts constituting the offense charged.

C. Legal Bases

  1. Constitutional Provision

    • The 1987 Constitution vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
    • It also empowers Congress to define the jurisdiction of lower courts.

  2. Statutory Provisions

    • B.P. Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended by R.A. No. 7691 and other laws:
      • Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs).
      • Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs).
    • Other Special Laws (e.g., R.A. No. 3019 for anti-graft cases, R.A. No. 9165 for dangerous drugs cases) may confer jurisdiction to special courts like the Sandiganbayan or designated Special Drugs Courts.

D. Hierarchy of Courts and Their Criminal Jurisdiction

Below is a general outline of Philippine courts’ jurisdiction over criminal cases (subject to amendments by subsequent special laws):

  1. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs)

    • Offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of fine and other accessory penalties.
    • Violations of city or municipal ordinances.
    • Certain cases covered by special laws where the prescribed penalty falls within the same range.

  2. Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)

    • Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body.
    • Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding six (6) years.
    • Special laws often specify RTC jurisdiction for serious offenses (e.g., illegal drugs, money laundering, cybercrime, etc.) unless otherwise specifically conferred upon other courts (like Sandiganbayan).

  3. Sandiganbayan

    • Jurisdiction over criminal (and civil) cases involving graft and corruption and related offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, provided certain salary grade thresholds and other criteria under R.A. No. 10660 and R.A. No. 8249 are met.

  4. Court of Appeals (CA)

    • Primarily an appellate court in criminal cases decided by the RTCs or other courts.
    • Does not generally exercise original jurisdiction over criminal matters, except in certain instances like special civil actions (e.g., certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) involving criminal cases.

  5. Supreme Court (SC)

    • Final appellate review.
    • Exercises original jurisdiction only in exceptional cases (e.g., petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus).

E. Effect of Amendments to the Complaint or Information on Jurisdiction

  • If an amendment to the Complaint or Information downgrades or changes the offense, it can affect the trial court’s jurisdiction if the original allegations were not correctly framed.
  • However, once jurisdiction has attached based on the original Information alleging a valid offense within the court’s jurisdiction, any subsequent amendment generally does not automatically divest the court of jurisdiction, unless the law or clear legal provisions mandate otherwise.

F. Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

  • If a court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged (or if the offense belongs to the jurisdiction of another court or tribunal), the accused can file a Motion to Quash the Information under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void and may be assailed at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

III. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

A. Definition

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is the power of the court to subject the accused to its orders and processes. Even if a court has jurisdiction over the offense, it must also acquire jurisdiction over the accused to validly try and decide the case.

B. Modes of Acquiring Jurisdiction over the Accused

  1. Voluntary Appearance or Submission

    • The accused appears in court, files pleadings, or otherwise participates in the proceedings (for example, by posting bail) without questioning the court’s jurisdiction over his or her person.
    • Such appearance or participation is deemed a waiver of any objection to jurisdiction over the person.

  2. Lawful Arrest

    • When the accused is lawfully arrested, either by a warrant of arrest or by warrantless arrest under circumstances allowed by law (Rule 113, Sec. 5, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure).
    • Once legally arrested, the accused is brought under the control of the court, typically upon filing of the Information and issuance of a commitment order or the setting of bail.

  3. Extradition or Other Legal Compulsion

    • In cases where the accused is extradited from another jurisdiction or otherwise compelled by lawful process, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person once the accused is under Philippine custody and subsequently before the court.

C. Waiver of Objection to Jurisdiction over the Person

  • An accused can waive any defect in the acquisition of jurisdiction over his or her person by failing to promptly raise it.
  • If the accused seeks affirmative relief, such as filing a motion that goes to the merits without challenging jurisdiction, the accused is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.

D. Instances of Non-Acquisition of Jurisdiction Over the Accused

  • If the accused challenges the legality of the arrest before entering a plea and continues to object to the court’s jurisdiction over his or her person, the court must resolve that issue first.
  • If the arrest is declared illegal and there is no subsequent valid submission of the accused to the court, jurisdiction over the person is not acquired.
  • However, an illegal arrest does not necessarily divest the court of jurisdiction over the offense, and if the accused voluntarily enters a plea (or otherwise participates in the proceedings) without renewing the objection, the court may be deemed to have properly acquired jurisdiction over the person.

IV. KEY POINTS AND JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINES

  1. Jurisdiction is Conferred by Law, Not by Consent

    • Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by agreement or waiver. It must be expressly provided by law.
    • (See People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 218949, 2019)

  2. Distinction Between Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter and Person of the Accused

    • Subject matter jurisdiction stems from statute; personal jurisdiction can be waived.
    • (See Borque v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-74475, 1987)

  3. Voluntary Appearance is Tantamount to Waiver of Objection Over Personal Jurisdiction

    • By posting bail or participating in trial without objecting, accused is considered to have waived defects in personal jurisdiction.
    • (See People v. Parazo, G.R. No. 125198, 1999)

  4. Jurisdiction Once Acquired Continues Until the Case is Terminated

    • Even if the penalty is subsequently modified or changed by law or by a plea-bargaining agreement, the court that first validly acquired jurisdiction retains it.
    • (See Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 197205, 2015)

  5. Motion to Quash (Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

    • The proper remedy for lack of jurisdiction is to file a motion to quash before entering a plea.
    • If the motion is granted, the case may be dismissed (without prejudice if the dismissal is for lack of jurisdiction over the offense or the person, unless double jeopardy attaches under specific circumstances).

  6. Effects of Illegal Arrest

    • The remedy of the accused is to file a motion to quash or challenge the arrest before arraignment.
    • If the accused fails to object before entering a plea, defects in the arrest are typically deemed waived.
    • (See People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, 2016)

V. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR LAWYERS

  1. Examine the Information Thoroughly

    • Ensure the factual allegations justify the offense charged and fall within the correct court’s jurisdiction.
    • If there is a jurisdictional mismatch, file a motion to quash or move for dismissal at the earliest opportunity.

  2. Check the Manner of Arrest

    • If your client was illegally arrested, object to the validity of the arrest prior to entering a plea.
    • Decide carefully whether to post bail or file motions that may constitute voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

  3. Monitor Amendments and Reinvestigations

    • If the prosecution amends the Information in a way that changes the nature of the offense and potentially the court’s jurisdiction, be prepared to raise or renew jurisdictional objections.

  4. In the Sandiganbayan

    • Confirm if the offense truly involves a public officer in relation to his or her office and meets the appropriate salary grade or official classification. Otherwise, the RTC or another court might have jurisdiction instead.

  5. Preserve Objections for Appeal

    • Properly raise and preserve jurisdictional issues at trial.
    • Jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised even for the first time on appeal, but best practice demands raising it at the earliest stage.

VI. CONCLUSION

In Philippine criminal procedure, jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person of the accused are indispensable prerequisites for a court to validly try and decide a criminal case. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined from the allegations in the Complaint or Information, while jurisdiction over the accused is obtained either through lawful arrest or voluntary appearance/submission to the court. A thorough understanding of these concepts—and a keen awareness of the relevant statutes and jurisprudential doctrines—is critical for both the prosecution and the defense to protect their clients’ rights and ensure that criminal proceedings comply with due process.

Disclaimer: The foregoing discussion is a general overview and does not constitute legal advice. For specific cases or problems, consultation with a qualified attorney is recommended.

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