CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – OUTLINE raised at any time in the proceedings,

whether during trial or on appeal. (Amoguis v.

1. What is criminal procedure? Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018,
THIRD DIVISION, LEONEN, J.)
Criminal procedure is the method prescribed
by law for the apprehension and prosecution of
persons accused of any criminal offense and for Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
their punishment, in case of conviction
Jurisdiction over the person of the
2. What is criminal procedure concerned
accused is acquired upon either his
with?
apprehension, with or without warrant, or by
Criminal procedure is concerned with the his voluntary appearance. (Valdepenas v.
procedural steps through which the criminal
case passes, commencing with the initial
People, 1966)
investigation of a crime and concluding with the
This voluntary appearance may either
unconditional release of the offender. It is a
generic term used to describe the network of be the appearance of accused for arraignment,
laws and rules which govern the procedural or the appearance of a counsel for an accused.
administration of criminal justice.
GR: By seeking affirmative reliefs from
the court, a person is also deemed to have
Concept of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of said
In general, jurisdiction refers to the court. (Sapugay v. Court of Appeals, 1993)
court’s “authority to hear and try a particular XPN: Those deemed merely special
case and impose the punishment for it.” (People appearances, or “whose prayer is precisely for
v. Mariano, 1976) the avoidance of jurisdiction of the court”.
In criminal procedure, this translates to: In criminal cases, these pleadings are:
(requisites for a valid exercise of criminal
1) Motion to quash a complaint on the
jurisdiction)
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter; person of the accused;
2) Jurisdiction over the territory where the 2) Motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
offense was committed; and
3) Jurisdiction over the person of the Jurisdiction over the territory where the
accused. offense was committed: Venue is Jurisdictional

Jurisdiction over the subject matter For jurisdiction over the territory to be
acquired by courts in criminal cases, “the
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is offense should have committed or any one of its
“the power to hear and determine cases of the essential ingredients took place within the
general class to which the proceedings in territorial jurisdiction of the court.” (Uy v. CA,
question belong.” (Treas v. People, 1986) 1997)
It is conferred by the sovereign authority that A court cannot take jurisdiction over a
organized the court and is given only by law in person charged with offense committed outside
the manner and form prescribed by law. of its territory.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a The rule that venue is jurisdictional
complaint is conferred by law. It cannot be
should be more completely states as: venue, for
lost through waiver or estoppel. It can be
the purpose of institution of a criminal action, is Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the
jurisdictional. court by placing the property or thing under its
custody (custodia legis).
Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by
The authority to decide a cast and not
the seizure of the thing under legal process
the decision therein is what makes up a
whereby it is brought into actual custody of law,
jurisdiction. Where the jurisdiction over the
or it may result from the institution of a legal
person and subject matter, the decision of all
proceeding wherein the power of the court over
other questions arising in the case is but an
the thing is recognized and made effective
exercise of the jurisdiction (de Veyra vs. Avila).
(Banco Español Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil.
Distinguish Jurisdiction from Venue. 291)
Jurisdiction is the power of the court to decide a Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error
case on the merits, while venue refers to the of judgment
place where the suit may be filed. In criminal
actions, however, venue is jurisdictional. An error of jurisdiction is one where the
Jurisdiction may not be conferred upon a court act complained of was issued by the court
by consent through waiver, but venue may be
without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs
waived except in criminal cases
when the court exercises a jurisdiction not
What are the elements of jurisdiction in conferred upon it by law, or when the court or
criminal cases?
tribunal although with jurisdiction, acts in
1. The nature of the offense and/or the excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
penalty attached thereto discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
2. The fact that the offense has been
committed within the territorial An error of judgment is one which the
jurisdiction of the court. court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction. As long as the court acts within its
Other concept of jurisdiction in criminal cases: jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing
Jurisdiction over the issues more than mere errors of judgment. Errors of
It is the power of the court to try and judgment include errors of procedure or
decide issues raised in the pleadings of the mistakes in the court’s findings.
parties. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
and determined by the pleadings (initiatory “conferred by the sovereign authority that
pleadings or complaint and not the answer) of organized the court and is given only by law in
the parties. The pleadings present the issues to the manner and form prescribed by law”. (Treas
be tried and determine whether or not the v. People, 2012)
issues are of fact or law.
Stated otherwise, jurisdiction of a court
Jurisdiction over the Res (Thing) or Property is defined by the Constitution or statute.
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the Jurisdiction of a court is determined “by
court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the the allegations in the complaint or information”,
property which is the subject of the action.
and not by the evidence presented by the no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a
parties at the trial. (People v. Magallanes, 1995) case that was pending prior to the enactment of
a statute. (People v. Court of Appeals, 2008)
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Or
Under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, courts will not determine a What is adherence of jurisdiction?
controversy involving a question within the The principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, means that once jurisdiction is vested in the
where the question demands the exercise of court, it is retained up to the end of the litigation.
sound administrative discretion requiring the It remains with the court until the case is finally
specialized knowledge and expertise of said terminated. The exception to this is where a
subsequent statute changing the jurisdiction of a
administrative tribunal to determine technical
court is given retroactive effect, it can divest a
and intricate matters of fact. (Baviera vs court of jurisdiction over cases already pending
Paglinawan, 2007) before it before the effectivity of the statute

Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction OR The facts alleged in the complaint and the law
Continuing Jurisdiction enforce at the time of commencement of
action of action determine the jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the court is referred to as
"continuing" in view of the general principle GR: Jurisdiction of a court to try a
that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that criminal case is to be determined at the time of
jurisdiction continues until the court has done the institution of the action, not at the time of
all that it can do in the exercise of that the commission of the offense.
jurisdiction. (20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, § 147,
1965). XPN: Section 4. Jurisdiction – The
Sandiganbayan shall exercise original
As a general rule, the jurisdiction of a jurisdiction in all cases involving: (A) Violations
court to try a criminal action is to be of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
determined by the law in force at the time of otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
the institution of the action. A consequence of Corruption Practices Act, and Republic Act No.
this is the concept of adherence of jurisdiction, 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
the general rule and exception of which is Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the
stated as follows: accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a
GR: Where a court has already obtained
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the
and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy,
time of the commission of the offense: xxxxx
its jurisdiction to proceed to the final
determination of the cause is not affected by
new legislation placing jurisdiction over such
If during the proceedings, the court finds that
proceedings in another tribunal.
it has no jurisdiction, how should it proceed?
XPN: The exception to the rule is where
the statute expressly provides, or is construed Where the court has no jurisdiction, lower courts
to the effect that it is intended to operate as to should simply dismiss the case. On the other
actions pending before its enactment. Where a hand, the Supreme Court and the Court of
statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has Appeals may refer the case to the court of
proper jurisdiction
Which law determines the jurisdiction of the In estoppel by laches, a claimant has a right
court – the law in force at the time of the that he or she could otherwise exercise if not
commission of the offense or the one in for his or her delay in asserting it. This delay
force as of the time when the action is filed? in the exercise of the right unjustly misleads the
court and the opposing party of its waiver. Thus,
Jurisdiction is determined by the law as of the to claim it belatedly given the specific
time when the action is filed, not when the circumstances of the case would be unjust.
offense was committed. The exception to this Amoguis v. Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, August
rule is where jurisdiction is dependent on the 20, 2018, THIRD DIVISION, LEONEN, J.
nature of the position of the accused at the time
The doctrine of the "law of the case"
of the commission of the offense. In this case,
The doctrine of the "law of the case" provides
jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at that questions of law previously determined by a
the time of the commission of the offense court will generally govern a case through all its
subsequent stages where "the determination
3. The edict in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is not
has already been made on a prior appeal to a
an exception to the rule on jurisdiction
court of law resort."
PD No. 1271 Committee v. De Guzman, G.R.
A court that does not have jurisdiction over
No. 187291, December 05, 2016, SECOND
the subject matter of a case will not acquire
DIVISION, LEONEN, J.
jurisdiction because of estoppel.

Rather, the edict in Tijam must be appreciated

as a waiver of a party's right to raise jurisdiction Objections to jurisdiction over the subject
based on the doctrine of equity. (Amoguis v. matter
Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018,
THIRD DIVISION, LEONEN, J.) When it appears from the pleadings or
evidence on record that the court has no
4. Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's or jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court
tribunal's power to hear and determine shall dismiss the same (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The court
cases of a general class or type relating may on its own initiative object to an erroneous
to specific subject matters jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take
This jurisdiction is conferred by law. cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in
Amoguis v. Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, the case and has a clearly recognized right to
August 20, 2018, THIRD DIVISION, LEONEN, J determine its own jurisdiction.
Where there is no jurisdiction over a subject Jurisdiction over the subject matter may
matter, the judgment is rendered null and
void be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
A void judgment has absolutely no legal for the first time on appeal. When the court
effect, "by which no rights are divested, from dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
which no rights can be obtained, which neither over the subject matter, it is common reason
binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts that the court cannot remand the case to
performed and all claims flowing out of are void
another court with the proper jurisdiction. Its
Estoppel by laches bars a party from only power is to dismiss and not to make any
invoking lack of jurisdiction in an unjustly other order.
belated manner especially when it actively
participated during trial Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
Estoppel by laches has its origins in equity. It
prevents a party from presenting his or her claim The active participation of a party in a
"when, by reason of abandonment and
case is tantamount to the recognition of that
negligence, he [or she] allowed a long time to
elapse without presenting [it]." court’s jurisdiction and will bar a party from
impugning the court’s jurisdiction.
Jurisprudence however, did not intend this (4) when the acts of the officer are
statement to lay down the general rule. without or in excess of authority;
(Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corp. vs.
(5) where the prosecution is under an
Estita, 449 SCRA 240; Mangaiag vs. Catubig-
invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
Pastoral, 474 SCRA 153). The Sibonghanoy
applies only to exceptional circumstances. (6) when double jeopardy is clearly
apparent;
The general rule remains: a court’s lack
of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the (7) where the Court has no jurisdiction
proceedings even on appeal (Francel Realty over the offense;
Corp. vs. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424; Concepcion vs.
Regalado, 2007). (8) where it is a case of persecution
rather than prosecution;
The doctrine of estoppel by laches in
relation to objections to jurisdiction first (9) where the charges are manifestly
appeared in the landmark case of Tijam vs. false and motivated by the lust for vengeance;
Sibonghanoy, where the SC barred a belated and
objection to jurisdiction that was raised only (10) when there is clearly no prima facie
after an adverse decision was rendered by the case against the accused and a motion to quash
court against the party raising the issue of on that ground has been denied. (Camanag v.
jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief Guerrero, 335 Phil. 945, 970-971 [1997])
from the court and after participating in all
stages of the proceedings. Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter
from jurisdiction over the person of the
When Injunction may be issued to Restrain accused (see also above)
Criminal Prosecution
The rule is that, in criminal cases,
As a general rule, the Court will not jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
issue writs of prohibition or injunction deemed waived (hence, you then submit
preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, yourself to the jurisdiction of the court) when
criminal prosecution. With more reason will he files any pleading seeking an affirmative
injunction not lie when the case is still at the relief, except in cases when he invokes
stage of preliminary investigation or the special jurisdiction of the court by
reinvestigation. However, in extreme cases, the impugning such jurisdiction over his person
Court laid the following exceptions: (you question the jurisdiction of the court).

(1) when the injunction is necessary to In such cases where jurisdiction is

afford adequate protection to the constitutional impugned, such as MOTIONS TO QUASH A
rights of the accused; COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED and
(2) when it is necessary for the orderly MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT OF ARREST,
administration of justice or to avoid oppression an accused can invoke the processes of the
or multiplicity of actions; court EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NEITHER
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON NOR
(3) when there is a prejudicial question CUSTODY OF THE LAW. In cases not involving
which is subjudice; special appearance, the general rule applies,
i.e. the accused is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon where the court has jurisdiction to take
seeking affirmative relief. (Miranda v. Tuliao) cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Thus, it
Distinction between custody of the law and cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged
jurisdiction over the person.
with an offense allegedly committed outside of
Custody of the law is required before that limited territory. Furthermore, the
the court can act upon the application for bail, jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
but is not required for the adjudication of other determined by the allegations in the complaint
reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere or information. And once it is so shown, the
application therefor constitutes a waiver of the court may validly take cognizance of the case.
defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of However, if the evidence adduced during the
the accused. Custody of the law is trial shows that the offense was committed
accomplished either by arrest or voluntary somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of action for want of jurisdiction.
the accused is acquired upon his arrest or The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is a practical
voluntary appearance. One can be under the judicial policy designed to restrain parties from
custody of the law but not yet subject to the directly resorting to this Court when relief may be
obtained before the lower courts
jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as This Court has emphasized in People v.
when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant Cuaresma that the power to issue writs of
files a motion before arraignment to quash the certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus does not
warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject exclusively pertain to this Court.
to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, Rather, it is shared with the Court of Appeals
and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as and the Regional Trial Courts. Nevertheless,
when an accused escapes custody after his trial "this concurrence of jurisdiction" does
has commenced. Being in the custody of the law not give parties unfettered discretion
as to the choice of forum. Aala v. Uy,
signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby
G.R. No. 202781, January 10, 2017, EN
deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him
BANC, LEONEN,
to become obedient to the will of the law.
Custody of the law is literally custody over the Exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of
body of the accused. It includes, but is not courts
limited to, detention. Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed
when any of the following grounds are present:
Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts (Venue is (1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are
raised that must be addressed immediately;
Jurisdictional) (2) when the case involves transcendental
importance;
The place where the crime was
(3) when the case is novel;
committed determines not only the venue of (4) when the constitutional issues raised are
the action but is an essential element of better decided by this Court;
jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for (5) when time is of the essence;
(6) when the subject of review involves acts of a
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal constitutional organ;
cases, the offense should have been (7) when there is no other plain, speedy,
committed or any one of its essential adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
ingredients should have taken place within the (8) when the petition includes questions that
may affect public welfare, public policy, or
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial demanded by the broader interest of justice
jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative court to take cognizance of a case at first
remedies, a party must first avail of all instance
administrative processes available before seeking Unlike the doctrine of exhaustion of
the courts' intervention administrative remedies, it cannot be waived.
The administrative officer concerned However, for reasons of equity, in cases where
must be given every opportunity to decide on jurisdiction is lacking, this Court has ruled that
the matter within his or her jurisdiction. Failing failure to raise the issue of non-compliance with
the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction
to exhaust administrative remedies at an opportune time may bar a subsequent
affects the party's cause of action as filing of a motion to dismiss based on that
these remedies refer to a precedent ground by way of laches.
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, DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY
LEONEN, J. 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
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative of a co-equal court over which it has no
remedies, like the doctrine on hierarchy of courts, is appellate jurisdiction. (Riano, 2016)
not an iron-clad rule. It admits of several well- No court can interfere by injunction with the
defined exceptions judgments or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant
Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. the relief sought by the injunction. (Atty. Cabili v.
Court of Appeals has held that the Judge Balindog, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225,
principle of exhaustion of September 6, 2011) Even in case of concurrent
administrative remedies may be jurisdiction, the court first acquiring jurisdiction
excludes the other courts. (Pacific Ace Finance
dispensed in the following instances:
Ltd. [PAFIN] v. Eiji Yanagisawa, G.R. No.
(1) [W]hen there is a violation of due 175303, April 11, 2012)
process; XPN: The doctrine does not apply where a third-
(2) when the issue involved is purely a party claimant is involved - this is in consonance
legal question; with the well-established principle that no man
(3) when the administrative action is shall be affected by any proceeding to which he
patently illegal and amounts to lack or is a stranger. (Sps. Crisologo v. Omelio, A.M.
No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, citing Sec.
excess of jurisdiction; 16, Rule 39, and quoting Naguit v. CA, G.R. No.
(4) when there is estoppel on the part 137675, December 5, 2000)
of the administrative agency Rationale
concerned; The rule is founded on the concept of
(5) when there is irreparable injury; jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction
(6) when the respondent is a over the case and renders judgment therein has
jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of
department secretary whose acts, as
all other coordinate courts, for its execution and
an alter ego of the President, bears the overall its incidents, and to control, in
implied and assumed approval of the furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial
latter; officers acting in connection with this judgment.
(United Alloy vs UCPB, G.R. No. 179257,
November 23, 2015)
Thus, the doctrine of primary administrative NOTE: The doctrine of non-interference likewise
jurisdiction refers to the competence of a applies with equal force to administrative bodies.
(Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan committed within their territorial jurisdiction
Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R. No. (Sec. 23[1], BP. 129 as amended by RA 7691)
127371, April 25, 2002)
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6
Totality or Aggregate Rule
Where there are several claims or causes of years irrespective of the amount of fine, and
actions, principally for recovery of money, regardless of other imposable penalties,
between the same or different parties embodied including the civil liability arising from such
in one complaint, the amount of the demand offenses irrespective of kinds, nature, value, or
shall be the totality of the claims in all amount. (Sec 32[2], BP 129 as amended by
causes of action irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or
RA7691)
different transaction. (Sec. 5[d], Rule 2)
NOTE: Under the present law, the totality rule is 3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses
applied also to cases where two or more involving damage to property through criminal
plaintiffs having separate causes of action negligence.
against a defendant join in a single complaint,
as well as to cases where a plaintiff has 4. Violations of BP 22, which shall be governed
separate causes of action against two or more
by the Rules on Summary Procedure in criminal
defendants joined in a single complaint.
However, the causes of action in favor of the cases.
two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more
defendants should arise out of the same 5. Summary procedure in certain cases
transaction or series of transactions and there
should be a common question of law or fact, as 6. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications
provided in Sec. 6, Rule 3 (permissive joinder of for bail in criminal cases in the absence of all
parties). RTC judges in a province or city.
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 B. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the Court
claims
against respondents are separate and distinct, Regional Trial Courts shall exercise the following
then jurisdiction:
neither falls within the RTC’s jurisdiction. (Flores
v. 1. Exclusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases not
Judge Mallare-Phillipps, G.R. No. L-66620,
September
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
24, 1986) tribunal, or body, except those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF TRIAL COURTS of the Sandiganbayan which shall be exclusively
taken cognizance of by the latter. (Sec 20, BP
A. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial 129)
Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and
Metropolitan Trial Court 2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
Except in cases falling within the exclusive warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction
original jurisdiction of the RTC and of the enforceable in any part of their respective
Sandigaynbayan, the MTC shall exercise the regions.
following criminal jurisdiction:
3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction.
violations of city or municipal ordinances
4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original
handle exclusively criminal cases as may be jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of
determined by the Supreme Court the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary
5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific writs and processes in aid of its appellate
laws, such as: jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature,
including quo warranto, arising or that may
a. Jurisdiction over criminal cases and civil arise in cases filed or which may be filed under
aspects of written defamation Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in
1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these
b. Jurisdiction of designated special courts over petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme
cases in violation of the Comprehensive Court.
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 as provided under
Sec. 90 thereof. Officials and employees with a salary grade of
27 or higher
c. Jurisdiction of designated RTC branches for
violations of intellectual property rights. Should one or more of the officials charged
have a salary grade of 27 or higher for the
C. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over the
case?
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving: No. The law mentions salary grade 27 only in
relation to the following officials:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft a. Officials of the executive branch, occupying a
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. position of regional director and higher
1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II
of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more b. Members of Congress or officials thereof
of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government, whether c. All other national and local officials (those not
in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at enumerated in Sec 4[a][1]) The salary grade has
the time of the commission of the offense. no reference to provincial governors, vice
governors, etc. Those enumerated are subject
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
complexed with other crimes committed by the regardless of salary grades.
public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a. of this section in relation to their Officers falling below salary grade 27
office.
The first part of Sec. 4 of Pd 1606 covers only
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and officials of the executive branch with the salary
in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 grade 27 and higher, the second part thereof,
and 14-A, issued in 1986. however, specifically includes other executive
officials whose positions may not be of grade 27
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive and higher but who are, by express provision of
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, law, placed under the jurisdiction of the court.
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts
whether in the exercise of their own original The provisions of Sec. 4(a)(1)(g) of P.D. 1606 as
jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as amended, explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan
herein provided. 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 may produce on facts personally known to them
search warrant shall be filed with the following: and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits
(a) Any court within whose territorial
submitted.
jurisdiction a crime was committed.
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the Search of house, room, or premise to be made
application, any court within the judicial in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a
region where the crime was committed house, room, or any other premise shall be
if the place of the commission of the made except in the presence of the:
crime is known, or any court within the
1. Lawful occupant thereof or
judicial region where the warrant shall
be enforced. 2. any member of his family or in the
absence of the latter,
However, if the criminal action has already
been filed, the application shall only be 3. two witnesses of sufficient age and
made in the court where the criminal action discretion residing in the same locality.
is pending.
Particularly of place to be searched and things
Probable Cause to be seized
In search warrant proceedings, The search warrant issued must
probable cause is defined as “such facts and particularly describe the place to be searched
circumstances that would lead a reasonably and persons or things to be seized in order for it
discreet and prudent man to believe that an to be valid. The confiscated items, having been
offense has been committed and the objects found in a place other than the one described in
sought in connection with the offense are in the the search warrant, can be considered as fruits
place sought to be searched.” of an invalid warrantless search, the
presentation of which as an evidence is a
Personal examination by judge of the
violation of petitioner's constitutional guaranty
complainant and witnesses
against unreasonable searches and seizure. (Del
Sec. 4, Rule 126. Requisites for issuing search Castillo v. People)
warrant. – A search warrant shall not issue
Personal Property to be Seized
except upon probable cause in connection with
one specific offense to be determined Sec. 11. Delivery of property and inventory
personally by the judge after examination under thereof to court. –
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the
describing the place to be searched and the property seized to the judge who issued
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the warrant, together with a true
the Philippines. inventory thereof duly verified under
oath. xxxx
Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; record. –
The judge must, before issuing the warrant, The Supreme Court held that goods
personally examine in the form of searching seized on the basis of a search warrant issued
questions and answers, in writing and under by the court under Rule 126 of the Rules of
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he Criminal Procedure are in custodia legis,
subject to the control and disposition of the
court that issued the search warrant. (Tenorio officer who has the right to be in the position to
v. Court of Appeals) have that view are subject to seizure and may
be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the
Exceptions to search warrant requirement seizure of evidence in plain view must comply
with the following elements:
The following are the instances when a
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the
warrantless search is allowed:
valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
(i) a warrantless search incidental legally present in the pursuit of their official
to a lawful arrest; duties;
(ii) search of evidence in “plain (b) the evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who had the right to
view;”
be where they are;
(iii) search of a moving vehicle;
(c) the evidence must be immediately
(iv) consented warrantless search;
apparent; and
(v) customs search; (d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of
(vi) a “stop and frisk” search; and evidence without further search.
(vii) exigent and emergency
circumstances. Search of a Moving Vehicle
Search Incidental to a lawful arrest
The search of a moving vehicle is
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A recognized in this jurisdiction as a valid
person lawfully arrested may be searched for exception to the requirement for a search
dangerous weapons or anything which may warrant. Such exception is easy to understand.
A search warrant may readily be obtained when
have been used or constitute proof in the
the search is made in a store, dwelling house or
commission of an offense without a search
other immobile structure. But it is impracticable
warrant. to obtain a warrant when the search is
In instances of warrantless searches conducted in a mobile ship, aircraft or other
incidental to lawful arrests, the law requires motor vehicle since they can quickly be moved
out of the locality or jurisdiction where the
that there be first a lawful arrest before a
warrant must be sought.
search can be made. The process cannot be
reversed. (People v. Nuevas, 2007) When a vehicle is stopped and
If there are valid reasons to conduct subjected to an extensive search, such a
lawful search and seizure which thereafter warrantless search is valid only as long as the
officers conducting the search have reasonable
shows that the accused is currently committing
or probable cause to believe before the search
a crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in
that they will find the instrumentality or
flagrante delicto without need for warrant of
evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to
arrest. In such a case, where the warrantless be searched.
arrest was illegal, ipso jure, the warrantless
search incidental to illegal arrest is likewise Consented Warrantless Search
unlawful.
Consent to a search is not to be lightly
Plain View Doctrine inferred, but shown by clear and convincing
evidence. It must be voluntary in order to
Under the “plain view doctrine,”
unlawful objects within the “plain view” of an validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the
consent must be unequivocal, specific,
intelligently given and uncontaminated by any A “Stop and Frisk” Search or Terry Searches
duress or coercion.
“Stop and frisk” searches can be
Whether consent to the search was in conducted either to prevent the occurrence of a
fact voluntary is a question of fact to be crime, or for the safety and self-preservation of
determined from the totality of all the the police.
circumstances. Relevant to this determination
A stop and frisk is defined as the act of a
are the following characteristics of the person
police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
giving consent and the environment in which
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or
consent is given:
contraband. Its object is to determine the
(1) the age of the defendant; identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain
the status quo momentarily while the police
(2) whether the defendant was in a
officer seeks to obtain more information.
public or a secluded location;
Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
(3) whether the defendant objected to
the search or passively looked on; The existence of emergency
circumstances depends on the peculiar facts of
(4) the education and intelligence of the
each case. In one case, the Supreme Court
defendant;
found that the military operatives, taking into
(5) the presence of coercive police account the facts obtaining in this case, had
procedures; reasonable ground to believe that a crime was
being committed, and there was consequently
(6) the defendant’s belief that no more than sufficient probable cause to warrant
incriminating evidence would be found; their condition. Under the situation then
(7) the nature of the police questioning; prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity
to apply for and secure a search warrant from
(8) the environment in which the the courts. The trial judge himself manifested
questioning took place; and that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective conducted, his court was closed. Under such
state of the person consenting. urgency and exigency of the moment, a search
warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.
Customs Search
Remedies from unlawful search and seizure
Law enforcers who are tasked to effect
the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws  Motion to Quash a Search Warrant to
are authorized to search and seize, without a Suppress Evidence (Sec. 14, Rule 126)
search warrant, any article, cargo or other  Writ of Habeas Corpus (Rule 102)
movable property when there is reasonable  A person without a warrant, after the
cause to suspect that the said items have been conduct of an inquest, has following
introduced into the Philippines in violation of remedies: request for a preliminary
the tariff and customs law. They may likewise investigation, either before or after the
conduct a warrantless search of any vehicle or filing of the information, or apply for
person suspected of holding or conveying the bail.
articles. (Salvador v. People, 2005)
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.