REM 5

• Criminal jurisdiction


  The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined at the time of the institution of the action, except when the governing special law provides otherwise
• The Sandiganbayan law provides that its jurisdiction is determined at the time of the commission of the offense
• Private crimes


  The right to commence an action or refrain therefrom is at the sole power and option of the offended party, who must decide whether to expose in public, the vices, faults, and disgraceful acts within the family
• Adultery


  A private crime that may only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the husband against the guilty parties
• In all crimes, whether private or public, the term "offended party" refers to the private complainant to whom the offender will be civilly liable in view of Article 100 of the RPC
• Right to initiate a criminal action involving private crimes


  Different from the right to prosecute the same. The offended party has the sole right to initiate a complaint for a private crime, but the public prosecutor, on behalf of the State, possesses the authority to prosecute the case
• The State is still an interested party in private crimes since all crimes, private or not, result in the disturbance of public peace and order which the State seeks to protect
• Only the State has the right to appeal the dismissal of a criminal case or acquittal of the accused. The private complainant may not take the appeal, except to protect his or her interest in the civil aspect of the case
• Sufficiency of information


  As long as the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such particularity and reasonable certainty that the accused is duly informed of the offense charged, then the information is considered sufficient
• The title of the complaint, the designation of the offense charged, or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated are mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited are controlling
• Discernment in criminal cases involving minors

  While it must be specifically alleged in the Information, the accused may waive the right to question the defects or insufficiency of said Information
• The accused may still be convicted of homicide if discernment was established during trial, even if not alleged in the Information
• Validity of Information or Complaint

  It is sufficient that the Resolution of the investigating prosecutor recommending the filing bears the approval of the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor, even if not signed on the face of the Information
• Charging multiple offenses in a single Information


  If the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose the proper penalty for each offense
• Formal vs. Substantial amendments to Information

  Formal amendments only state with precision something already included, and do not alter the nature of the crime or affect the essence of the offense. Substantial amendments recite new facts constituting the offense and are determinative of the court's jurisdiction
• Amendments after arraignment


  Only formal amendments can be made with leave of court, and they must not prejudice the rights of the accused. Substantial amendments are prohibited except if beneficial to the accused
• Substantial amendments after plea are prohibited to avoid violating the accused's constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and against double jeopardy
• Test for prejudice from amendment


  Whether a defense under the original information would still be available, and whether any evidence the defendant has would be equally applicable to both versions of the information
• Apart from violating the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of his or her accusation, substantial amendments to the information after plea is prohibited to prevent having the accused put twice in jeopardy
• When a person is charged with an offense and the case against him or her is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other way without his or her consent, he or she cannot be charged again with a similar offense
• Test to determine if defendant is prejudiced by amendment of information


  Whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other
• An amendment to an information introduced after the accused has pleaded not guilty thereto, which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment is one of form and not of substance — not prejudicial to the accused and, therefore, not prohibited
• The criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred
• When a law specifically provides another venue, then the criminal action shall be instituted in such place
• The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving damage to the government or bribery in an amount exceeding One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00)
• The Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00)
• Cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office
• As a general rule, the courts will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction to enjoin or restrain any criminal prosecution
• Exceptions where criminal proceedings may be enjoined

  • When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
  • When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
  • When there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice
  • When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
  • When the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
  • When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
  • When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
  • When it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
  • When the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance
  • When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied
• In B.P. Blg. 22 cases, the offended party should pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved
• Under Rule 111, what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex delicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer deemed instituted, and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action
• Acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not operate as res judicata to bar the filing of the Complaint for Damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code
• The criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto of the accused are extinguished upon his/her death during the pendency of the case
• When a criminal action for violation of the tax laws is filed, a prior assessment is not required. Neither a final assessment is a precondition to collection of delinquent taxes in the criminal tax case. The criminal action is deemed a collection case. Therefore, the government must prove two things: one, the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and two, the accused's civil liability for taxes by competent evidence (other than an assessment).
• If before the institution of the criminal action, the government filed (1) a civil suit for collection, or (2) an answer to the taxpayer's petition for review before the CTA


  1. The civil action or the resolution of the taxpayer's petition for review shall be suspended before judgment on the merits until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action

  2. Before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, it may be consolidated with the criminal action

  3. In such a case, the judgment in the criminal action shall include a finding of the accused's civil liability for unpaid taxes relative to the criminal case
• Prejudicial question


  A question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime, but so intimately connected with it that its ascertainment determines the guilt or innocence of the accused
• For a prejudicial question to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
• The existence of a prejudicial question only operates to suspend the criminal action and should not result in its outright dismissal.
• If the RTC finds that the transfer of ownership is valid, then there is no prohibited act or violation of the law, rules, and regulations committed by respondents that would constitute a violation of Section 3 (a) or (e) of RA 3019. If the RTC does not cancel TCT No. T-88286 in the name of Noor, then private respondents cannot be held criminally liable for the alleged irregularities made by Felicia in issuing the said title.
• Notwithstanding the existence of a prejudicial question in OMB-M-C-15-0171, the Ombudsman should not have ordered the outright dismissal of the same, as it directly contravenes Section 6, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman expressly provides shall apply in a suppletory character or by analogy.