Criminal Procedure Judge Gener

• Procedure for criminal cases

  1. Commission of a crime

  2. Preliminary investigation to determine probable cause

  3. Filing of information in court

  4. Court determines probable cause for warrant of arrest

  5. Arraignment

  6. Pre-trial

  7. Trial

  8. Judgment

  9. Appeal

  10. Service of sentence
• Procedure for crimes not requiring preliminary investigation in a chartered city

  1. File complaint with prosecutor's office

  2. Prosecutor determines probable cause based on complaint and evidence

  3. File information in court

  4. Court issues warrant of arrest

  5. Arraignment

  6. Pre-trial

  7. Trial

  8. Judgment

  9. Appeal

  10. Service of sentence
• Procedure for crimes not requiring preliminary investigation in a province

  1. File complaint/information directly in court

  2. Court determines probable cause for warrant

  3. Arraignment

  4. Pre-trial

  5. Trial

  6. Judgment

  7. Appeal

  8. Service of sentence
• Procedure for crimes committed in flagrante delicto

  1. Arrest without warrant

  2. Inquest proceedings to determine probable cause

  3. File information in court

  4. Court issues commitment order

  5. Arraignment

  6. Pre-trial

  7. Trial

  8. Judgment

  9. Appeal

  10. Service of sentence
• Requisites for criminal jurisdiction

  • Jurisdiction over subject matter
  • Jurisdiction over territory
  • Jurisdiction over person of accused
• Jurisdiction over subject matter

  Conferred by law, cannot be waived or agreed upon by parties, determined by allegations in information not evidence at trial, determined at commencement of action not time of crime (except for Sandiganbayan cases)
• Jurisdiction over person of accused

  Acquired by arrest under warrant or voluntary submission to court's jurisdiction
• Custody of law is different from jurisdiction over person
• Court can have jurisdiction over person even if accused is not yet in custody of law, and vice versa
• Consulting relevant laws like BP 129, RA 7691 is key to determining subject matter jurisdiction
• criminal cases which are falling within the jurisdiction of the met metc mtcc mtc mctc this is what we call the first level court. That law will also give you those cases which are falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC and the law creating CTA will also tell you the cases which are falling under the jurisdiction of the CTA
• but in so far as bp 129 as amended by republic of 7691 impossible penalty is above six years okay the general rule is that it is within the jurisdiction of the rtc six years below it is within the jurisdiction of the mtc
• there are cases i have said those where penalty prescribed by law exceed six years of imprisonment a respectable fine is within the jurisdiction of the rtc
• but as i have said regardless of the penalty like violations certain violations of republica 9165 valuation of intellectual property law libel for example validation of 9262 anti-money laundering violation of cyber crime and those criminal cases falling under the appellate jurisdiction
• take note for example defamation under article 360 of the revised speed of code what is the impossible penalty i am not actually uh sure of the exact impossible penalty but what i am sure of is that the impossible penalty in so far as defamation under article 360 is concerned is below six years below six years and by specific provision of the revised penal code by specific provision of the revised penal code and my jurisdiction rtc unanswered and general rule six years about above six years rpc but there are law which provides that this forecast jurisdiction and then we follow that law not the impossible penalty for the purpose of determining which court has jurisdiction
• the second question is who committed the offense okay if you know the answer to these two questions then you are you already know those cases falling under the jurisdiction of this antique empire
• Crimes under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

  • Violation of Republic Act 319
  • Forfeiture under Republic Act 1379
  • Crimes under Chapter 2 Section 2 Title 7 Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code
  • Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimes committed by public officials or employees in relation to their office
• Persons under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

  • Officials of the executive branch occupying the position of regional director or higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 or higher
  • Provincial governors, vice governors, members of Sangguniang Panlalawigan, provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads
  • City mayors, vice mayors, Sangguniang Panlungsod members and department heads of the city
  • Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul or higher
  • Philippine Army or Air Force colonels, naval captains and all officers higher of AFP officers of PNP while occupying a position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent
  • City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants
  • Officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor
  • Presidents, directors, trustees or managers of government-owned and controlled corporations, state universities, educational institutions or foundations
  • Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as grade 27
  • Members of the judiciary
  • Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions
  • All other national and local officials classified as grade 27
• Gedispan vs People - The petitioner is the manager of the PhilHealth, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
• The accused is a student regent in UP, which can be likened to a director of a government-owned and controlled corporation, and thus falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
• If the public office is not an element of the crime, but there is an intimate connection between the offense, the office, and the offense, or the office was used in the commission of the crime, then the offense may still be considered as committed in relation to the office and fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
• The information must allege the intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties, not just allege that the crime is committed in relation to the office
• In the case of De Lima vs Guerrero, the information alleged that the accused took advantage of their public office, conspiring and confederating with the use of their power, position, and authority to demand, solicit, and extort money from high profile inmates to support the senatorial bid of Senator De Lima
• Republic Act 9165 on drug-related cases vests exclusive jurisdiction over such cases with the Regional Trial Court, and no other court
• The pertinent special law governing drug related cases is Republic Act 9165
• Jurisdiction over drug cases is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and no other court
• The Supreme Court emphasized Articles 20, 61, 62, and 90 of Republic Act 9165, which speak of the RTC and do not mention any other court
• The interpretation of the Supreme Court is that there is no other court where you can try violations of Republic Act 9165 except the RTC, regardless of who committed the offense or how the offense is committed
• Presidential Decree 1606, as amended by Republic Act 8249 and Republic Act 10660, gives the Sandiganbayan exclusive jurisdiction where the information does not allege any damage to the government or bribery, or alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in the amount not exceeding one million pesos
• If the information does not allege bribery or damage to the government exceeding one million pesos, the RTC has jurisdiction even if the accused is a public official
• The appeal process for decisions of the RTC is to the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, in cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher
• Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional, and the general rule is that the venue is the place where the crime is committed or any of its essential elements
• There are exceptions to the general rule on venue, such as for piracy, offenses committed on board vessels or aircraft, libel, and violations of Batas Pambansa 22 (bouncing checks)
• Criminal action is instituted either by filing a complaint for preliminary investigation or by filing the information directly in court, depending on the imposable penalty
• The institution of criminal action interrupts the running of the prescriptive period of the offense charged, regardless of whether it is a crime under the Revised Penal Code or a special law
• The filing of the complaint or information with the prosecutor's office, not the court, interrupts the prescriptive period
• A defective information, such as one not signed or approved by the prosecutor, is a jurisdictional defect that can be questioned at any stage of the proceedings
• if it is a jurisdictional defect what does it mean it can be attacked at any stage of the proceeding because such defect cannot be cured by silence
• you can question that for the first time on appeal the answer is yes because the supreme court said in kisai versus people is that it is not on the defect is not only a formal defect it is a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence
• Section 8 of rule 110

  The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by statute aware the acts or remission constituting the offense and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances