Jurisdiction In Criminal Cases

1. SUPREME COURT
A. ORIGINAL
i. EXCLUSIVE
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the Court of Appeals & the Sandiganbayan
ii. CONCURRENT
a. With the Court of Appeals:
a. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the Regional Trial Court
b. With the Court of Appeals & the Regional Trial Court
a. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the lower courts
c. With the Sandiganbayan:
a. petitions for mandamus, prohibition
certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions and ancillary
writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
b. petitions for quo warranto arising from Executive
Order #s 1, 2, 14 & 14 – A
B. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
i. BY APPEAL
a. From the Regional Trial Court:
a. in all criminal cases involving offenses for which
the penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
b. those involving other offenses which, although not
so punished, arose out of the same occurrence or which
may have been committed by the accused on the same
occasion.
b. Automatic review in criminal cases where the death
penalty is imposed.
ii. BY PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
a. From the Court of Appeals;
b. From the Sandiganbayan; and
c. From the Regional Trial Court where only an error
or question of law is involved
2. COURT OF APPEALS
A. ORIGINAL
i. EXCLUSIVE
a. Actions for annulment of judgments of the Regional
Trial Court
 ii. CONCURRENT
a. With the Supreme Court:
a. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the Regional Trial Court
b. With the Supreme Court & Regional Trial Court:
a. petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the Regional Trial Court
B. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
i. BY APPEAL
From the RTC in cases commenced therein, except those
appealable to the Supreme Court or the Sandiganbayan
ii. BY PETITION FOR REVIEW
From the Regional Trial Court in cases appealed thereto from the
lower courts and not appealable to the Sandiganbayan
3. SANDIGANBAYAN
A. ORIGINAL
i. EXCLUSIVE
a. Violations of:
a. Republic Act 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
b. Republic Act No. 1379
c. Chapter 11, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code
b. where one or more of the accused are officials occupying
the following positions in the government, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense:
c. (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
position of regional director and higher (AKA Grade ‘27’ of
RA 6758), including:
a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan, provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other provincial department
heads;
b. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of
the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers and other city department heads;
c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher;
 d. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains, and all officers of higher rank;
e. Officers of the PNP while occupying the position
of provincial director and those holding the rank of
senior superintendent or higher;
f. City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the office of
the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
g. Presidents, directors of trustees, or managers of
government owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.
d. (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof (classified
as Grade ‘27’ and higher under the CPCA of 1989);
e. (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
f. (4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
g. (5) All other national and local officials (classified as
Grade ‘27’ and higher under the CPCA of 1989)
h. b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed in relation to their
office by the public officials and employees mentioned in
Section 4(a), P.D. 1606, as amended by Republic Act 7975
i. c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with Executive Order #s 1,2,14 and 14 – A, issued
in 1986
ii. CONCURRENT
a. With the Supreme Court:
a. petitions for mandamus, prohibition certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunctions and ancillary writs in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction;
b. petitions for quo warranto arising from Executive
Order #s 1, 2, 14 & 14 – A
B. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
i. BY APPEAL
a. From the Regional Trial Court in cases under P.D. 1606
(as amended by P.D. 1861) whether or not the cases were
decided by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdictions
4. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
A. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
i. All criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body
B. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
i. All cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions
5. METROPLOITAN, MUNICIPAL, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURTS
A. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
i. All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within
their respective territorial jurisdictions;
ii. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6
years irrespective of the amount of fine
iii. All cases of damage to property through criminal negligence
a. regardless of other penalties and the civil liabilities
arising therefrom
iv. All offenses committed by public officers and employees in
relation to their office, including those employed in government-
owned or controlled corporations
a. except violations of RA 3019 & RA 1379
b. except Articles 210 – 212 of the Revised Penal Code
v. All offenses committed by private individuals charged as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories
a. punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years;
or
b. where none of the accused holds a position of salary
Grade “27” and higher
B. SUMMARY PROCEDURE
i. Traffic violations
ii. Violations of the rental law
iii. Violations of city municipal ordinances
iv. All other offenses where the penalty does not exceed 6 months
imprisonment and/or P1,000 fine
a. irrespective of other penalties or civil liabilities arising
therefrom
v. All offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence
a. where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.-
 Criminal Procedure: RULE 110 –
Prosecution of Offenses

 
 RULE 110 – Prosecution of Offenses
1. Institution of Criminal Actions (Sec. 1)
1. How is criminal action instituted
1. For offenses where the Preliminary Investigation is
Required (sec 1, par 1)
1. For Offenses where a preliminary investigation is
required pursuant to Sec 1 of Rule 112, by filing the Complaint with
the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary Investigation.
1. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112 Sec
1 par 1) – 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.
2. When is Preliminary Investigation is
Required – (Rule 112 Sec 1 par 2) – Preliminary Investigation is
required to be conducted before filing of a complaint or information
for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least Four (4)
years, Two (2) months and One (1) days without regard to the fine.
3. Exception (Rule 112 Sec 6) *Renumbered
formerly Sec 7 – When the accused lawfully arrested without a
warrant. – When a person is lawfully arrested without warrant
involving the offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the
complaint or information may be filed a prosecutor without need of
such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in
accordance with existing rules.
2. For All other offense not requiring Preliminary
Investigation
2. When is it deemed instituted
3. Who is qualified to institute it:
a. By complainant, de parte
 b. By information, de officio
(a) Jimenez vs Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151 (Full Text)
2. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information (Sec. 6) (COCA-DP)
1. Name of the accused
2. Name of the offended party
3. Name of the offense(Crime)
1. People vs Valdez, 663 SCRA 272 (Full Text)
1. For complaint or information to be sufficient, it
must state the name of the accused; the designation of the offense
given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the title
of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the
particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere
conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the
crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or
omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient
to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is
intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment.
2. Miguel vs Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA 560 (Full Text)
1. The test of the information’s sufficiency is
whether the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such
particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly
informed of the offense charged. In particular, whether an information
validly charges an offense depends on whether the material facts
alleged in the complaint or information shall establish the essential
elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. The raison
d’etre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to
suitably prepare his defense.
3. People vs Soria, 685 SCRA 483 (Full Text)
1. “[W]here an offense may be committed in any of
the different modes and the offense is alleged to have been
committed in two or more modes specified, the indictment is
sufficient, notwithstanding the fact that the different means of
committing the same offense are prohibited by separate sections of
the statute. The allegation in the information of the various ways of
committing the offense should be regarded as a description of only
one offense and the information is not thereby rendered defective on
the ground of multifariousness.”
4. Cause of accusation: qualifying and aggravating
circumstances
1. Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January
28, 2003
1. The acts or omissions complained or must be
alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and
enable the court to know the proper judgment. The Information must
allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. What
facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be
determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific
crimes. The purpose of the requirement of alleging all the elements of
the crime in the Information is to inform an accused of the nature of
the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare for
his defense. Another purpose is to enable accused, if found guilty, to
plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.
2. People Of The Philippines Vs. Tampus, G.R. No.
181084, June 16, 2009,
1. In the case at bar, although the victim’s minority
was alleged and established, her relationship with the accused as the
latter’s daughter was not properly alleged in the Information, and even
though this was proven during trial and not refuted by the accused, it
cannot be considered as a special qualifying circumstance that would
 serve to increase the penalty of the offender. Under the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which should be given retroactive effect following
the rule that statutes governing court proceedings will be construed as
applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage, every Information must state the qualifying and the
aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime for
them to be considered in the imposition of the penalty. Since in the
case at bar, the Information did not state that the accused is the
mother of the victim, this circumstance could not be appreciated as a
special qualifying circumstance. She may only be convicted as an
accomplice in the crime of simple rape, which is punishable
by reclusion perpetua.
3. Place of commission
5. Date of commission
3. Amendment vs Substitution (Sec. 14)
1. Distinguish
1. Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A
complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance,
without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea.
After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be
made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing
prejudice to the rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature
of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint
or information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with
notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall
state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall
be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. (n)
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the
original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
charging the proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119,
 provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The
court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the
trial. (14a)
1. Rule 19 Sec 19. When mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense. — When it becomes manifest at any time
before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged
or any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not
be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case,
the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense
and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper information.
(11a)
2. Compare with Rule 10
4. Place where the action is to be instituted (Sec. 15)
1. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases
1. the venue of criminal cases is not only in the place
where the offense was committed, or
2. where any of its essential ingredients took place.
2. Union Bank vs People, 667 SCRA 113 (Full Text)
5. Intervention of the offended party (Sec. 16)
1. Sec 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action.
— Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the
criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene
by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
2. Compare with Rule 19, Sec 1, Who may intervene. — A
person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the
success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so
situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer
thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties,
and whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a
separate proceeding. (2[a], [b]a, R12)