SAN BEDA COLLEGE

SCHOOL OF LAW
ALABANG, MUNTINLUPA CITY
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ATTY. J-VIT CAPELLAN

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Definition of Remedial/Adjective Law

It is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for
their invasion.
B. Definition of Criminal Procedure

regulates the steps by which one who committed a crime is to be punished

C. Distinctions between Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law

Criminal law is substantive; it defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for
their punishment. Criminal procedure, on the other hand, is remedial or procedural; it
provides for the method by which a person accused of a crime is arrested, tried and
punished. Criminal law declares what acts are punishable, while criminal procedure
provides how the act is to be punished.

D. Sources of Criminal Procedure

Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure

General Order No. 58, dated April 23 1900
Amendatory acts passed by the Philippine Commission
The various quasi acts, the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Jones Law of 1916, the
Tydings-McDuffie Law, and the Constitution of the Philippines
The Rule of Court of 1940, and the 1964, 1985, and 1988 Rules on Criminal
Procedure
Various Republic Acts (RA 240, Judiciary Act, RA 8249 creating the Sandiganbayan,
Speedy Trial Act)
Presidential Decrees
1987 Constitution, particularly Art. III Bill of Rights
Civil Code (Art. 32, 33, 34)
Certain judicial decisions
RA 8393 The Speedy Trial Act
Circulars
The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Dec 1, 2000)

II. COURTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

A. Definition of a Court
a legal institution or government entity with the authority to hear and adjudicate
disputes, administer justice, and apply the law to specific cases.
B. Definition of a Judge
a legal professional who presides over court proceedings, makes rulings on legal
matters, and delivers judgments in cases brought before a court.

C. Distinction between a Court and a Judge

Court:

 A court is a legal institution or government entity established to hear and resolve

disputes, apply the law, and administer justice.
 It serves as a formal forum for legal proceedings, where cases are presented, argued, and
decided according to established legal procedures.
 Courts have jurisdiction, which defines their authority to hear specific types of cases
based on factors such as subject matter, geographical location, and parties involved.
 Courts can be organized into different levels, such as trial courts, appellate courts, and
supreme courts, each with specific functions and scopes of authority.
 A court may consist of multiple judges, clerks, bailiffs, and other supporting personnel
who contribute to the functioning of the judicial process.

Judge:

 A judge is a legal professional who presides over court proceedings and makes decisions,
rulings, and judgments in cases presented before a court.
 Judges are responsible for ensuring that trials and hearings are conducted fairly,
according to established laws and procedures.
 They interpret and apply the law to the facts of a case, make determinations on legal
issues, and assess the admissibility of evidence.
 Judges maintain order in the courtroom, uphold the principles of justice, and ensure that
all parties receive a fair opportunity to present their cases.
 In many legal systems, judges have the authority to issue sentences, orders, and
judgments that are legally binding and enforceable.
 Judges play a central role in maintaining impartiality, interpreting the law, and rendering
decisions that contribute to the proper functioning of the legal system.

In summary, a court is an institution where legal proceedings take place, and it encompasses a
physical space, legal jurisdiction, and a structure of legal processes. On the other hand, a judge is
an individual legal professional who presides over those proceedings, makes legal
determinations, and delivers judgments in accordance with the law. A court may consist of
multiple judges who collectively administer justice, while a judge serves as the decision-maker
within the court.

D. Courts of Law; Courts of Equity

Courts of Law:

 Courts of Law were historically focused on providing remedies that were based on
established legal rules and precedents.
 The primary remedy offered by Courts of Law was monetary compensation, also known
as "damages."
 These courts followed strict formal procedures and rules, often requiring a party to prove
their case through specific legal elements.
 The decisions in Courts of Law were guided by legal statutes and common law
principles.
 The primary goal of Courts of Law was to provide a remedy for the violation of legal
rights, often by awarding a sum of money to compensate for damages.

Courts of Equity:

 Courts of Equity developed as a response to the limitations of Courts of Law. They aimed
to provide remedies in cases where the strict application of legal rules might lead to
injustice or inadequacy.

Page 2 of 21
 Courts of Equity could grant remedies beyond monetary compensation, such as
injunctions, specific performance, and rescission of contracts.
 These courts were guided by principles of fairness, conscience, and equitable principles,
rather than strict legal rules.
 The decisions in Courts of Equity were made by judges rather than juries, and the
remedies were more flexible and adaptable to the unique circumstances of each case.
 Courts of Equity were more concerned with preventing harm, enforcing agreements, and
providing remedies that went beyond monetary compensation.

E. Classification of Courts
1. General jurisdiction

is the power or authority given by the law to a court or tribunal to hear and determine
certain controversies.

It is the power of courts to hear and determine a controversy involving rights which
are demandable and enforceable.

2. Special/Limited Jurisdiction
III. Family Courts: Family courts have jurisdiction over cases involving family matters,
including crimes against women and children, such as domestic violence and child
abuse.
IV. Anti-Graft Courts: These courts handle cases related to graft and corrupt practices
committed by public officials and employees.
V. Drug Courts: Drug courts specialize in cases related to violations of drug laws,
particularly the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
VI. Juvenile Courts: Juvenile courts handle cases involving minors in conflict with the
law. They aim to provide rehabilitation and guidance to young offenders.
VII. Sharia Courts: In areas with a significant Muslim population, Sharia courts have
jurisdiction over criminal cases involving Muslim personal laws and certain offenses
under Islamic law.
VIII. Sandiganbayan: The Sandiganbayan is a special court that focuses on cases
involving public officers and employees accused of graft and corrupt practices.
IX. Military Courts: Military courts handle cases involving military personnel who
commit offenses under military law.
X. Regional Trial Courts (RTC) and Municipal Trial Courts (MTC): While these
are not strictly specialized courts, they do have limited jurisdiction based on the
nature of the offense and the maximum penalty prescribed by law. RTCs and MTCs
handle various criminal cases, but their jurisdiction can vary depending on the
severity of the offense.

1. Original Jurisdiction
refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case for the first time, as
opposed to appellate jurisdiction, which involves reviewing decisions made by
lower courts. When a court has original jurisdiction over a case, it means that the
case can be filed and heard in that court as a starting point.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction
refers to the authority of a higher court to review and potentially overturn the
decisions of a lower court in a legal case.
3. Superior Courts
refer to courts that have higher authority or greater jurisdiction compared to other
courts within a legal system.

Court of Appeals (CA):

Page 3 of 21
  It reviews decisions made by lower courts, such as Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and
specialized courts, as well as certain administrative agencies.

 The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court and the final arbiter of legal questions
and issues in the Philippines.
 The Sandiganbayan is a special court that primarily handles cases involving graft and
corrupt practices committed by public officials and employees.
the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over cases involving public officials and
employees in cases of graft and corrupt practices.

4. Inferior Courts
generally refer to courts that have lower authority or jurisdiction compared to higher or superior
courts. These courts handle less serious cases, minor disputes, and matters that do not fall under
the jurisdiction of higher courts. Inferior courts are often the first level of entry for legal disputes
and cases in the judicial system.

As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, here are the main kinds of inferior courts in
the Philippines:

1. Municipal Trial Courts (MTC):

o Municipal Trial Courts handle cases involving small claims, minor offenses, and
violations of city or municipal ordinances.
o They have limited jurisdiction over cases with lower penalties and less complex
issues.
o MTCs are usually the first level of court for many local disputes.
2. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC):
o Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are similar to MTCs but are established in certain
areas where municipalities are not large enough to merit separate courts.
o They handle cases from multiple municipalities within a certain circuit or
grouping.
3. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC):
o Metropolitan Trial Courts have jurisdiction over cases involving small claims and
minor offenses within cities designated as "metropolitan areas."
o They deal with cases that are generally less serious in nature.
4. Metropolitan Trial Courts in Cities (MeTC):
o Similar to MeTCs, these courts handle cases within specific cities. The term
"metropolitan" reflects their jurisdiction within urban centers.
5. City Trial Courts (CTC):
o City Trial Courts handle cases within specific cities, including small claims and
minor offenses.
o They have limited jurisdiction over cases with lower penalties and less
complexity.

5. Courts of Record
refer to courts where a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the
testimony of witnesses and the arguments of the parties, is transcribed and
preserved.
6. Courts Not of Record
refer to courts where proceedings are not transcribed or recorded verbatim.
7. Constitutional Courts

e Philippine Supreme Court performs the functions that might be attributed to a constitutional
court in other jurisdictions. It has the authority to review the constitutionality of laws, executive
orders, presidential decrees, and other government actions. The Supreme Court can declare laws
or actions unconstitutional and can interpret provisions of the Philippine Constitution.

Page 4 of 21
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court includes:

1. Judicial Review: The Supreme Court can exercise judicial review over laws, ordinances,
and executive actions to determine if they conform to the Philippine Constitution. This
power allows the Court to strike down laws or actions that are inconsistent with
constitutional principles.
2. Cases Involving Constitutionality: The Supreme Court hears cases that directly involve
constitutional questions, such as cases challenging the validity of legislative enactments
or government decisions on constitutional grounds.
3. Cases of Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over certain
cases involving constitutional issues, such as cases involving impeachment, quo warranto
proceedings, and cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.

8. Statutory Courts
refers to courts that are created by specific legislation or statutes.
1. Family Courts: Family Courts are specialized courts that handle cases involving family
matters, such as marriage, adoption, annulment, child custody, and support. They were
established by Republic Act No. 8369, known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997."
2. Sharia Courts: Sharia Courts are established in areas with a significant Muslim
population and have jurisdiction over cases involving Islamic law and personal matters of
Muslims. They were established by Presidential Decree No. 1083, also known as the
"Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines."
3. Commercial Courts: Commercial Courts deal with cases related to commercial
transactions and business disputes. They were established by Republic Act No. 8799, also
known as the "Securities Regulation Code," which expanded the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts to include commercial cases.
4. Environmental Courts: Environmental Courts handle cases involving environmental
laws and regulations, including those related to pollution, conservation, and natural
resource management. They were established by Republic Act No. 8749, also known as
the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."
5. Labor Courts: Labor Courts are responsible for resolving labor disputes and cases
involving labor and employment laws. They were established by Presidential Decree No.
21-A and are also referred to as the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
6. Special Commercial Courts: These courts are designed to handle complex commercial
disputes. They were created by Republic Act No. 11232, known as the "Revised
Corporation Code," which introduced various reforms related to corporate governance
and business registration.
7. Drug Courts: Drug Courts are specialized courts that deal with cases involving
violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act No. 9165).
8. Child and Youth Welfare Courts: These courts handle cases related to the welfare and
protection of children and young people, including cases of abuse and exploitation. They
were established under Republic Act No. 9344, known as the "Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006."

B. Hierarchy of Courts
XI. Supreme Court of the Philippines: This is the highest judicial body in the country
and serves as the final court of appeal. It has the power of judicial review and ensures
the constitutionality of laws and government actions. The Supreme Court also has
administrative control over all lower courts.
XII. Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court that hears
appeals from lower courts and administrative agencies. It has multiple divisions, and
decisions rendered by the divisions can be further appealed to the Supreme Court.
XIII. Sandiganbayan: This is a special court that deals with cases involving public
officials accused of graft and corrupt practices. It has jurisdiction over cases filed
against government officials, including those in high-ranking positions.

Page 5 of 21
XIV. Court of Tax Appeals: This court is responsible for handling cases related to tax
disputes and controversies.
XV. Regional Trial Courts: These are the principal trial courts in the Philippines. They
have jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, both criminal and civil, within their
territorial jurisdiction.
XVI. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts: These are the lower trial courts that handle less serious offenses and cases
with lower monetary claims. They have limited jurisdiction depending on the nature
of the case and the amount involved.
XVII. Shari'a District Courts: These courts have jurisdiction over cases involving Muslim
personal laws. They apply Islamic principles and customary laws in their decisions.
XVIII. Shari'a Circuit Courts: These courts assist the Shari'a District Courts and have a
more localized jurisdiction.
XIX. Shari'a Appellate Courts: These courts handle appeals from the Shari'a District and
Circuit Courts and are the highest authority on Muslim personal laws.

A. Adherence of Jurisdiction
a fundamental aspect of the legal system that ensures cases are heard and decided by
the appropriate court
1. Territorial Jurisdiction: Criminal cases are usually tried in the court within whose
territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed. This ensures that the court has a direct
connection to the location where the alleged offense occurred.
2. Hierarchy of Courts: Each level of court has its own specific jurisdiction. Higher courts
generally handle more serious offenses or cases that have been appealed. Lower courts
handle less serious offenses and cases with lower penalties.
3. Jurisdiction Over the Person: The court must have jurisdiction over the accused person.
This means that the accused must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or they
must have been properly served with a summons or warrant of arrest to compel their
appearance before the court.
4. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: The court must have the authority to hear cases of a
particular nature or involving specific offenses. For instance, certain specialized courts,
like the Sandiganbayan for cases involving public officials accused of graft and
corruption, have limited subject matter jurisdiction.
5. Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts: Appellate courts, such as the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court, have jurisdiction to review decisions of lower courts. This includes
ensuring that lower courts correctly applied the law and followed proper procedures.
6. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts: This principle dictates that higher courts will not
entertain direct appeals of cases that should be initially brought before lower courts.
Litigants must exhaust all available remedies in lower courts before seeking review in
higher courts.
7. Proper Venue: Venue refers to the particular place where a case should be filed or
heard. It is closely related to territorial jurisdiction. Proper venue ensures that the trial
occurs in a location that is convenient and appropriate for the parties involved.
8. Waiver of Jurisdiction: In some cases, parties may agree to waive certain jurisdictional
requirements. For instance, a defendant might voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of a
court even if it's not the court with territorial jurisdiction over the offense.
9. Challenges to Jurisdiction: If a party believes that a court does not have the proper
jurisdiction over a case, they can raise this issue as a legal defense. The court will then
decide on the jurisdictional matter before proceeding with the case.

B. Doctrine of Non-Interference/Doctrine of Judicial Stability

This principle states that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere
with each other's orders.

C. Judicial Stability/Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Page 6 of 21
 The phrase "Stare Decisis" from the Latin verb "sto' which means "to be quiet" and
the word decisum, "settled thing," is a Latin maxim conveying the idea of the policy
of some courts to abide by or adhere to decided cases. It is the abbreviated expression
of the Latin maxim "Stare Decisis et non quieta mo- vere" which means "to adhere to
decided cases and not to disturb settled questions." When a point or question properly
decided in a previous case comes again in litigation, it was deemed advisable and
more convenient to adopt the opinion and course of reasoning of the judge rendering
the former decision.'
It is a maxim, meaning, to adhere to precedents, and not to
unsettled things which are established.' The doctrine, in general, is to the effect that
where a point has been once settled by decision it forms a precedent which is not
afterwards to be departed from.'
D. Judicial Courtesy
Judicial courtesy refers to the practice of judges showing deference and respect to
decisions made by other courts, especially higher courts within the same judicial
system.
E. How are courts classified as to nature?
1. General jurisdiction
court with general jurisdiction has the authority to hear a wide range of cases,
both civil and criminal, without significant limitations on the subject matter or
types of cases it can handle. These courts are often referred to as "courts of
general jurisdiction" or "trial courts of general jurisdiction."
2. Special/Limited Jurisdiction
A court with limited jurisdiction, on the other hand, can only hear specific types of cases or
cases involving a limited amount of money. These courts are often established to handle less
complex matters and relieve the workload of higher courts.

3. Original Jurisdiction
refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case in the first instance, as
opposed to an appellate jurisdiction where a court reviews decisions made by
lower courts.
4. Appellate Jurisdiction
refers to the authority of a higher court to review and decide on appeals from
decisions of lower courts.
5. Exclusive Jurisdiction
refers to the legal authority of a particular court to hear and decide certain types
of cases to the exclusion of other courts.
6. Concurrent/Confluent/Coordinate Jurisdiction
refers to the legal authority of a particular court to hear and decide certain types
of cases to the exclusion of other courts.
7. Delegated Jurisdiction
refers to the authority granted to lower courts by higher courts to handle certain
cases that, based on their nature, would normally fall under the jurisdiction of the
higher court.
8. Special Jurisdiction
refers to the authority granted to specific courts or tribunals to handle particular
types of cases or offenses.
F. What comprises the criminal law justice system?
1. Inquisitorial
the detection and prosecution of crimes are left to the initiative of officials and
agents of the law
2. Accusatorial
contemplates of 2 contending parties before the court which hears them impartially
and renders judgment after trial

3. Mixed

Page 7 of 21
 combination of the inquisitorial and the accusatorial system

XX. JURISDICTION
A. What is Jurisdiction
power or authority given by the law to a court or tribunal to hear and determine
certain controversies

B. Classification of Jurisdiction
1. Substantive concept
refers to the inherent legal authority of a court to hear and decide cases of a
particular nature or involving certain types of offenses.
2. Procedural context
relates to the legal authority of a court to follow proper legal procedures and
processes when handling a case.
C. Distinction between Jurisdiction over the crime charged and Jurisdiction of the court
over the case (People vs Garfin, 226 SCRA 393)
1. Over the crime charge
deals with the type of offense a court can handle.
2. Over the case by the court
focuses on the court's authority to hear a specific case within the framework of
applicable laws and regulations.
D. How is jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired?
the state or the government acts as the prosecutor, and the complainant's role is
generally less significant than in civil cases. The focus is primarily on jurisdiction
over the offense committed and the accused.
E. How is Jurisdiction o
F. Essential requisites for the valid exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction of the subject matter or nature of the offense/penalty of the offense
charged

power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belongs

2. Jurisdiction over the person

the authority over a person charged is acquired

2.1.Arrest;
with or without warrant,
2.2.Voluntary surrender and posting of bail;
2.3.Voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court
jurisdiction of the accused can be waived

3. Jurisdiction over the Territory

power to take cognizance over a territory, where the offense is allegedly committed
by the accused

3.1.Situs of offense
refers to the location where a criminal offense took place. The situs of an
offense is an essential element in determining which court has jurisdiction
over the case and which laws apply
3.2.Transitory offense
crimes where some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to
their commission occur in one municipality or territory and some acts are done
in another place.
3.3.Continuing offense

Page 8 of 21
 consummated in one place, yet by nature of the offense, the violation of the
law is deemed continuing.
3.4.Extraterritorial offense
refers to a country's ability to assert legal authority and prosecute individuals
for offenses committed outside its own territory.
3.5.Committed through the digital/cyber network
Jurisdiction over offenses committed through digital or cyber networks, often referred to as
cybercrimes, can be complex and may involve multiple legal principles. In the Philippines, as in
many other countries, jurisdiction in cases of cybercrimes is determined based on a combination
of factors:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The general principle of territorial jurisdiction applies to

cybercrimes. If a cybercrime was initiated or had an impact within the territorial
boundaries of the Philippines, Philippine authorities may have jurisdiction over the case.
This means that Philippine law enforcement agencies and courts can investigate and
prosecute such cases.
2. Server Location: The location of the server hosting the digital service or platform
involved in the cybercrime can also be a relevant factor. If the server is located within the
Philippines, it may provide a basis for jurisdiction, even if the perpetrator is physically
located in another country.
3. Victim's Location: In cases where the cybercrime directly harms a person or entity
within the Philippines, jurisdiction may be established based on the location of the
victim. This principle is often used in cases involving online fraud, cyberbullying, or
harassment.
4. Nationality of the Perpetrator: Philippine law may assert jurisdiction over cybercrimes
committed by Philippine citizens or residents, even if the offense occurred outside the
country. This is known as the nationality principle.
5. Extradition and International Agreements: For cybercrimes that have an international
dimension, the Philippines can seek cooperation from other countries through extradition
treaties and international agreements. If the perpetrator is located in another country,
extradition proceedings may be initiated to bring them to justice in the Philippines.
6. Transnational Cybercrimes: Many cybercrimes are transnational in nature, involving
perpetrators and victims in multiple countries. In such cases, international cooperation
and collaboration among law enforcement agencies become crucial. The Philippines may
work with other countries and international organizations to combat cybercrimes
effectively.
7. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs): MLATs are agreements between
countries that facilitate the exchange of information and evidence for criminal
investigations and prosecutions. The Philippines may enter into MLATs with other
countries to streamline the process of investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes with
international aspects.
8. Interpol and International Policing Agencies: Interpol and other international policing
agencies play a role in assisting countries in combating cybercrimes that cross borders.
The Philippines is a member of Interpol and can seek assistance from the organization in
pursuing cybercrime investigations that involve foreign elements.

Jurisdiction in cybercrime cases is often a complex legal issue that requires a careful analysis of
the specific circumstances involved. The laws and regulations related to cybercrimes and
jurisdiction can change, so it is essential for individuals and entities involved in cybercrime cases
to consult with legal experts who are well-versed in cybercrime laws and international legal
principles.
3.6.
G. Distinction between Error of Jurisdiction and Error of Judgment
Error of Judgment =An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the
exercise of its jurisdiction.

Page 9 of 21
 An error of jurisdiction renders an order or judgment void or voidable. Errors of
jurisdiction are reviewable on certiorari; errors of judgment, only by appeal.

H. Distinction between Venue and Jurisdiction

Venue is defined as the particular country or geographical area in which a court with
jurisdiction may hear and determine a case. It means the place of trial.

On the other hand, jurisdiction is the power of the court to decide the case on the merits. Venue
is thus procedural, while jurisdiction is substantive. In civil cases, venue may be waived or
stipulated by the parties. On the other hand, jurisdiction is granted by law or the Constitution and
cannot be waived or stipulated.

1. Power of the Supreme Court to Transfer the Venue of criminal cases in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice - Section 5 (4), Article VIII, Constitution
Section 5(4), Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution empowers the Supreme Court of the
Philippines to transfer the venue of criminal cases in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
This constitutional provision grants the Supreme Court the authority to ensure that trials are
conducted fairly and impartially, even if it requires changing the location or venue of the trial.

Here is the full text of Section 5(4), Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution:

"Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

...

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice."

Key points regarding this provision include:

1. Power to Ensure Fair Trials: This constitutional provision reflects the importance of
fair and impartial trials in the Philippine legal system. The Supreme Court has the
authority to act when it believes that holding a trial in a particular venue might lead to a
miscarriage of justice.
2. Change of Venue: The power to order a change of venue means that if the Supreme
Court determines that a fair trial cannot be conducted in the original venue due to factors
such as public prejudice, security concerns, or other reasons that may impede justice, it
can transfer the trial to a different location within the Philippines.
3. Protection of the Accused: One of the primary purposes of this provision is to protect
the rights of the accused by ensuring that their trial is conducted in a manner that upholds
the principles of due process and fairness.
4. Discretionary Authority: The decision to transfer the venue of a criminal case rests with
the Supreme Court, and it is a discretionary power. The Court will consider the
circumstances of each case to determine whether a change of venue is necessary to
prevent a miscarriage of justice.
5. Legal Process: The process for requesting a change of venue typically involves a petition
to the Supreme Court, supported by compelling reasons and evidence that a fair trial in
the original venue is unlikely. The Court will then evaluate the petition and decide
whether to grant the request.

Overall, this provision in the Philippine Constitution underscores the commitment to upholding
the rule of law and ensuring that the justice system operates with fairness and impartiality, even
if it requires moving the venue of a criminal trial to achieve this goal.

I. Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court

Page 10 of 21
 The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law.
1. Limitations
a. The Rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases;
b. The Rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade; and
c. The Rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5(5), Art.
VIII, Constitution). Only the legislature can do these acts, not the SC.

2. Power to suspend the application of the rules

The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a
case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of
justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the
rule is discretionary upon the courts. When a rule promulgated by the SC is not applied by the SC
to a particular case, it is not a situation where the SC violates its own rules. It is a situation where the
SC has promulgated rule on that particular case only pro hac vice. This is the power of the SC
to suspend the rules in the interest of justice. The SC can even not apply a particular
rule. In a case where the action of the MTC was patently null and void, the SC took cognizance of
a petition for certiorari without it having to pass the RTC. The SC in this particular case did not
follow a rule. What is the justification of the court? Action has to be done immediately. Only the SC
can do that. The SC has also sustained appeals filed beyond the reglementary period shown to be
meritorious and the failure to file on time was with a reason that will compel the court to recognize
that reason. The rules are not intended to be applied with pedantic rigor. The rules and technicalities
have to give way to the interest of substantial justice. So when there is a conflict between the interest
of justice and technicalities, the latter have to give way in order to give way to justice. Reasons which
would warrant the suspension of the Rules:

1. Existence of special or compelling circumstances;

2. the merits of the case;
3. a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
rules;
4. lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
5. the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. Compliance with the rules is the general
rule, and abandonment thereof should only be done in the most exceptional circumstances.

Power to amend the rules

The SC has the power to amend, repeal or even establish new rules for a more simplified and
inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases. The constitutional power of the SC to
promulgate rules of practice and procedure and to amend or repeal the same necessarily carries
with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment
of the ROC. The ROC are to be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing
a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding.

J. Injunctive reliefs
the existence of an urgent necessity to prevent serious damage.

the applicant must establish the actual and existing right sought to be protected. The
applicant must also establish the urgency of a writ's issuance to prevent grave and
irreparable injury. Failure to do so will warrant the court's denial of the application.

XXI. DUE PROCESS

A. Due Process in Criminal Procedure
1. Source
2. Requirements
a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it
b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused
c) that the accused is given opportunity to be heard
d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing

Page 11 of 21
CASES:
Cariage v. People, G.R. No. 180010, July 30, 2010
Republic v. Viaje, G.R. No. 180993, 27 January 2016
People v. Dapitan, G.R. No. 90625, May 23, 1991
Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., G.R. No. 131652, 131728, 9 March 1998
People v. Sola, G.R. Nos. 56158-64, 17 March 1981
Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 133289, 23 December 1999
Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, 29 August 2002
People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, 25 March 2014
Cojuangco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134307, 21 December 1998
Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 March 2006
Alva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157331, 12 April 2006
David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, 18 March 2015

B. Prescriptive Period for Crimes - Interruption

1. RPC
2. Special Laws

CASES:
Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. v. Lidua, Sr., G.R. No. 169588, 7 October 2013
Republic. V. Conjuangco, G.R. No. 139930, 29 June 2012
Sanrio Co. Ltd. v. Lim, G.R. No. 168662, 19 February 2008
People v. Galano, G.R. No. L-4925, 31 January 1977

XXII. JURISDICTION

References:
1. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 insofar as it has not been amended
2. B.P. Blg.129
3. P.D. No.1606 as amended by RA 7976, RA 8249 and RA 10660
4. R.A. No. 3019
5. R.A. No. 1379
6. Revised Penal Code Book 2 - Chapter 2, Section 2, Title VII
7. R.A. No. 6713
8. E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14, 14-A of 1986
9. R.A. No. 7080
10. Human Security Act of 2007
11. R.A. 7055
12. Omnibus Election Code (Election Offenses)
13. R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630
14. R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No. 10167 and R.A. No. 10365, as amended by R.A.
No. 10630
15. R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640
16. R.A. No. 10175
17. R.A. No. 8369
18. R.A. No. 8293

A. Katarungang Pambarangay (Local Government Code, Book III, Title 1, Chapter

7)
B. Municipal Trial Court/Metropolitan Trial Court
1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
2. Special Jurisdiction
3. Rule on Summary Procedure
1. Distinguish Summary Proceeding from Summary Procedure
2. B.P. Blg. 22

Page 12 of 21
 C. Regional Trial Court
1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
2. Concurrent and Original
3. Family Court
4. Dangerous Drugs Court
5. Appellate Jurisdiction
6. Special Jurisdiction

CASES:
People v. Ocaya, G.R. No. L-47448, 17 May 1978
Guevarra v. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, 26 January 1989
Gonzales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 164007, 10 August 2006
People v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 155573, 24 April 2009
Samson v. Daway, G.R. Nos. 160054-55, 21 July 2004

D. Sandiganbayan
1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
2. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Ancillary writs and processes in aid of appellate jurisdiction

CASES:
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165835, 22 June 2005
Marcos, Jr., v. Republic, G.R. No. 189434 and 189505, 12 March 2014
Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 161784-86, 26 April 2005
People v. Montejo, G.R. No. L-14595, 31 May 1960
Soller v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 144261-62, 9 May 2001
Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008
Duncano v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 191894, 15 July 2015
Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ, G.R. No. 159747, 13
April 2004
Consigna v. People, G.R. Nos. 175750-51, 2 April 2014
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, 20 January 1999
Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 141710, 3 March 2004
Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152398, 14 April 2005
Sanchez v. Demetriou, G.R. Nos. 111771-77, 9 November 1993
Adaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154886, 28 July 2005

E. Court of Tax Appeals

1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
2. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
F. Court of Appeals
1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
2. Concurrent and Original Jurisdiction
3. Appellate Jurisdiction
G. Supreme Court
1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
2. Concurrent Jurisdiction
3. Appellate Jurisdiction

Rule 110
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, 24 November 2009

Subject to the provisions of Section 15, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
any criminal or civil action involving a child in conflict with the law shall be instituted and tried
in the appropriate court nearest the place where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential elements occurred ...

Page 13 of 21
CASES:
People v. Caoile, G.R. No. 203041, 5 June 2013
Ampatuan, Jr., v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, 3 April 2013
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Reynado, G.R. No. 164538, 9 August 2010
Callo-Claridad v. Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, 20 March 2013
Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, 5 December 2012
People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 175602, 18 January 2012
Organo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136916, 14 December 1999
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 147706-07, 16 February 2005
People v. Yparraguire, G.R. No. 124391, 5 July 2000
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, 30 June 1989
People v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-47437, 29 September 1983
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, 26 February 2002
Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455, 11 August 2015
People v. Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139297, 23 February 2004
People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016
Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165751, 12 April 2005
People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271m 31 August 2006
Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, 9 February 2007
Soberano v. People, G.R. No. 154629, 5 October 2005
Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28 September 2007
Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, 30 June 1987
Fronda-Baggao v. People, G.R. No. 151785, 10 December 2007

Rule 111

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court

Articles 32, 33, 34, 2176, and 2177 of the Civil Code

CASES:
Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, 29 August 2002
Proton Pilipinas Corp. v. Republic, G.R. No. 165027, 16 October 2006
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 147703, 14 April 2004
Spouses Santos v. Pizardo, G.R. No. 151452, 29 July 2005
Rotea v. Halili, G.R. No. L-12030, 30 September 1960
Bernardo v. People, G.R. No. 182210, 5 October 2015
Chiok v. People, G.R. Nos. 179814 & 180021, 7 December 2015
Carandang v. Santiago, 97 Phil 94 (1955)
Ace Haulers Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127934, 23 August 2000
Madeja v. Caro, G.R. No. L-51183, 21 December 1983
Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., G.R. No. 172505, 1 October 2014
Maccay v. Spouses Nobela, G.R. No. 145823, 31 March 2005
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116463, 10 June 2003
Naguiat v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73836, 18 August 1988
Manliclic v. Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, 25 January 2007
Nuguid v. Nicdao, G.R. No. 150785, 15 September 2006
People v. Consing, G.R. No. 148193, 16 January 2003
San Miguel Proeprties, Inc., v. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 4 September 2013
Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, 31 July 2000
Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. v. Lichauco, G.R. No. 134887, 27 July 2006
Ark Travel Express, Inc. v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 137010, 29 August 2003
Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22 October 2012
Rillon v. Rillon, G.R. No. L-13172, 28 April 1960
De Lima v. Reyes, G.R. No. 209330, 11 January 2016

Page 14 of 21
Cojuangco, Jr., v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. Nos. 923190-20, 2
October 1990
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. Nos. 192935, 193036, 7 December 2010

Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC

R.A. No. 6770
Administrative Order No. 07, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as Amended
by Administrative Order No. 15
DOJ Circular No. 70, 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal, as amended
R.A. No. 10071
Sec. 265 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Sec. 43 of RA 9369
Section 2 of Article IX-C of the Constitution
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Human Security Act of 2007
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, 24 November 2009

CASES:
Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ, G.R. No. 159747, 13 April 2004
Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, 21 April 2014
People v. Villanueva and Durana, G.R. No. 114266, 4 December 1996
Quarto v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 169042, 5 October 2011
Basuego v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 196842, 9 October 2013
Arroyo v. Department of Justice, G.R. Nos. 199082, 199085 and 199118, 18 September 2012
Aguinaldo v. Ventus, G.R. Nos. 176033, 11 March 2015
Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, 11 February 1992
Raro v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 108431, 14 July 2000
Doromal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85468, 7 September 1989
Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 10 November 2015
Villarin v. People, G.R. No. 175289, 31 August 2011
Larranaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130644, 13 March 1998
Budiongan, Jr. v. dela Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. 170288, 22 September 2006
Rodis, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 71404-09, 26 October 1988
Quisay v. People, G.R. No. 216920, 13 January 2016
De Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147932, 25 January 2006
Pemberton v. De Lima, G.R. No. 217508, 18 April 2016
Ching v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 164317, 6 February 2006
Roberts, Jr., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113930, 5 March 1996
Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, 15 November 1988
People v. Dela Torre-Yadao, G.R. No. 162144-54, 13 November 2012
Pua v. Citibank, N.A., G.R. No. 180064, 16 September 2013
Cruz v. Arreola, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1642, 6 March 2002
Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28, 18 August 2006
Okabe v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 150185, 27 May 2004
Leviste v. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, 3 August 2010
People v. Serzo, Jr., G.R. No. 118435, 20 June 1997

Habeas Corpus, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court

CASES:
Mangila v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 160739, 17 July 2017
Ampatuan v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 182497, 29 June 2010

Rule 113
DOJ Circular No. 61, 1993, Inquest Procedure
R.A. No. 7438

Page 15 of 21
CASES:
People v. De Guia, G.R. Nos. 107200-03, 9 November 1993
Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, 10 November 2014
Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, 15 November 1988
In re: Harvey v. Santiago, G.R. No. 82544, 28 June 1988
Alimpoos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-27331, 30 July 1981
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, 3 August 2010
Ongcoma Hadji Homar v. People, G.R. No. 182534, 2 September 2015
People v. Givera, G.R. No. 132159, 18 January 2001
In Re Umil v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 81567, 84581-82, 84583-84, 83162, 85727, 86332, 3 October
1991
Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 199042, 17 November 2014
Ambre v. People, G.R. No. 191532, 15 August 2012
Comerciante v. People, G.R. No. 205926, 22 July 2015
Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 101837, 11 February 1992
People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999
Posadas v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131492, 29 September 2000
People v. Chi Chan Liu, G.R. No. 189272, 21 January 2015
People v. Cubcubin, Jr., G.R. No. 136367, 10 July 2001
Mallari v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110569, 9 December 1996

Habeas Corpus, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court

CASES:
IN RE: Salibo v, Warden, G.R. No. 197597, 8 April 2015

Rule 114, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC

R.A. No. 9346
R.A. No. 9344, as amended by RA 10630
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, 24 November 2009
A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, 18 March 2014
R.A. No. 6036
OCA Circular No. 39-37, 19 June 1997
DOJ Department Circular No. 17, 2007
DOJ Department Circular No. 18, 23 April 2007
DOJ Department Circular No. 41, 07 June 2010

CASES:
Esteban v. Alhamra, G.R. No. 135012, 7 September 2004
Alva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157331, 12 April 2006
Santos v. Lorenzo, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1702, 20 August 2002
People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 27 October 2006
Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, Sr., G.R. No. 179817, 27 June 2008
Panganiban v. Cupin-Tesorero, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1454, 27 August 2002
Floresta v. Ubiadas, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1774, 27 May 2004
Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010
Villanueva v. Buaya, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131, 22 November 2010
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015
Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, 19
April 2007
Comendador v. De Villa, G.R. No. 93177, 95020, 96948, 97454, 2 August 1991
Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, 1 February 2000
People v. Valdez, G.R. NOo. 216007-09, 8 December 2015
Docena-Caspe v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1767, 28 March 2003
Santos v. Ofilada, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1217, 16 June 1995

Page 16 of 21
Basco v. Rapatalo, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335, 5 March 1997
Order dated 15 November 2011 in Arroyo v. De Lima, G.R. Nos. 199034, 199046
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/resolutions/2011/november2011/199034_199046_TRO.
pdf)
See also Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/resolutions/2011/november2011/199034_199046_SER
ENO2.pdf)

Rule 115
Right to Speedy Trial
R.A. No. 8493, Speedy Trial Act
R.A. No. 7438
Equipoise Rule

CASES:
Supreme Court Circular No. 38-39, 11 August 1998
A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, 18 March 2014
Domondon v. First Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166606, 29 November 2005
Perez v. People, G.R. No. 164763, 12 February 2008
Ombudsman v. Jurado, G.R. No. 154155, 6 August 2008
Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, G.R. No. 183994, 30 June 2004
Ibañez v. People, G.R. No. 190798, 27 January 2016
Tin v. People, G.R. No. 126480, 10 August 2001
People v. Lugnasin, G.R. No. 208404, 24 February 2016
Spouses Telan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95026, 4 October 1991
People v. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, 12 April 2002
People v. Cachuela, G.R. No. 191752, 10 June 2013
People v. Morial, G.R. No. 129295, 15 August 2001
People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, 7 July 1989
Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)
People v. Nicandro, G.R. No. L-59378, 11 February 1986
Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil 570 (1929)
Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005
Lumawlaw v. Peralta, Jr., G.R. No. 164853, 13 February 2006
Abadia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105597, 23 September 1994
People v. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 121039-45, 18 October 2001

Rule 116
Bill of Particulars, Rule 12, Rules of Court

CASES:
Hao v. People, G.R. No. 183345, 17 September 2014
People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020, 14 March 2007
Braza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 196032, 20 February 2013
Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, 28 March 2008
ABS-CBN Corporation v. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, 11 March 2015
Bug-atan v. People, G.R. No. 175195, 15 September 2010
People v. Villarama, Jr., G.R. No. 99287, 23 June 1992
People v. Desuyo, G.R. No. 140406, 17 April 2002
Aguinaldo v. Ventus, G.R. No. 176033, 11 March 2015
Bandoy v. Jacinto, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-14-2399, 19 November 2014
People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 192818, 17 November 2010
People v. Baharan, G.R. No. 188314, 10 January 2011
People v. Espinosa, G.R. Nos. 153714-20, 15 August 2003
Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, 26 February 2009
People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-58678-80, 20 July 1982

Page 17 of 21
People v. Documento, G.R. No. 188706, 17 March 2010
Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, 121245, 121297, 23 August 1995
People v. Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, 16 January 1998

Rule 117
A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, 18 March 2014
Omnibus Motion Rule, Section 8 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
People v. Bayabos, G.R. Nos. 171222 & 174786, 18 February 2015
Zapatos v. People, G.R. Nos. 147814-15, 16 September 2003
People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004
In Re Salibo v, Warden, G.R. No. 197597, 8 April 2015
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010
Saldariega v. Panganiban, G.R. Nos. 211933 & 211960, 15 April 2015
Shyunliong v. Rivera, G.R. No. 200148, 4 June 2014
Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172035, 4 July 2012
People v. Nitafan, G.R. Nos. 107964-66, 1 February 1999
Quisay v. People, G.R. No. 216920, 13 January 2016
Acharon v. Purisima, G.R. No. L-23731, 26 February 1965
Condrada v. People, G.R. No. 141646, 28 February 2003
Ciron v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 194339-41, 20 April 2015

Rule 118
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, 13 July 2004
Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC
Supreme Court Circular No. 38-39, 11 August 1998
Zaldivar v. People, G.R. No. 197056

Rule 119
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-07-SC
Rule on DNA Evidence, A.M. No. 06-11-05-SC
Section 14 (2), Article III of the Constitution
R.A. No. 6981
A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, 18 March 2014

CASES:
Vda. De Mangerra v. Risos, G.R. No. 152643, 28 August 2008
People v. Webb, G.R. No. 132577, 17 August 1999
People v. Mamarion, G.R. No, 137554, 1 October 2003
People v. Marcial, G.R. Nos. 152864-65, 27 September 2006
Maquiran v. Grageda, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1888, 11 February 2005
Estrada v. People, G.R. No. 162371, 25 August 2005
People v. Sunga, G.R. No. 126029, 27 March 2003
People v. Chaves, G.R. No. 131377, 11 February 2003
Go v. People, G.R. No. 185527, 18 July 2012
Cabarles v. Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, 20 February 2007
People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 173308, 25 June 2008
People v. Monje, G.R. No. 146689, 27 September 2002
People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 118670. 22 February 2000
Yu v. Presiding Judge, RTC of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, G.R. No. 142848, 30 June 2006
Merciales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124171, 18 March 2002
Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165996, 17 October 2005
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 153304-05, 7 February 2012
People v. Garcia Cristobal, G.R. No. 159450, 30 March 2011
Re Pinto, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289, 2 October 2012
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 185729-32, 26 June 2013
Jimenez, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 209195, 17 September 2014
Mari v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 187728, 12 September 2011

Page 18 of 21
Ampatuan, Jr., v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, 3 April 2013
Olbes v. Buemio, G.R. No. 173319, 4 December 2009
Bautista v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 157219, 28 May 2004
People v. Beberino, G.R. No. L-23092, 28 October 1977
Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114046, 24 October 1994
Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598 and 220953, 19 July 2016
People v. Jardin, G.R. Nos. L-33037-42, 17 August 1983

Rule 120
Probation Law
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 13-01, 14 February 2001
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, 15 January 2008

CASES:
Bigler v. People, G.R. No. 210972, 2 March 2016
Estrada v. People, G.R. No. 162371, 25 August 2005
Cobarrubias v. People, G.R. No. 160610, 14 August 2009
People v. Labao, G.R. No. 102826, 17 March 1993
Solis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-29777-83, 26 March 1971
People v. CFI of Quezon, Branch X, G.R. No. L-48817, 29 October 1993
Reyes v. Mangino, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1575, 31 January 2005
Villena v. People, G.R. No. 184091, 31 January 2011
Salvador v. Chua, G.R. No. 212865, 15 July 2015
Garces v. Hernandez, Jr., G.R. NO. 180761, 9 August 2010
People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5 June 2009
Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, 28 March 2008
People v. Noque, G.R. No. 175319, 15 January 2010
Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, 1 December 2014
Sevilla v. People, G.R. No. 194390, 13 August 2014
People v. Lascuna, G.R. No. 90626, 18 August 1993
People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, 15 December 2010
People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 175602, 18 January 2012
Pascua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140243, 14 December 2000

Habeas Corpus, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court

CASES:
Adonis v. Tesoro, G.R. NO. 182855, 5 June 2013
Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137560, 19 January 2000

Rule 121
Senit v. People, G.R. No. 192914, 11 January 2016
De Villa v. The Director, New Bilibid Prisons, G.R. No. 158802, 17 November 2004
People v. Bongalon, G.R. No. 125025, 23 January 2002
People v. Licayan, G.R. No. 203961, 29 July 2015
Posadas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOs. 168951 & 169000, 17 July 2013
Salvador v. Chua, G.R. No. 212865, 15 July 2015
Flores v. People, G.R. NO. 181354, 27 February 2013
Paredes v. Borja, G.R. No. L-15559, 29 November 1961

Rule 122
A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC
Rule 65, Rules of Court

CASES:
Sumbilla v. Matrix Finance Corp., G.R. No. 197582, 29 June 2015

Page 19 of 21
People v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 110898, 20 February 1996
Almero v. People, G.R. No. 188191, 12 March 2014
People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004
People v. Rocha, G.R. No. 173797, 31 August 2007
Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, 9 February 2011
Macapagal v. People, G.R. No. 193217, 26 February 2014
Sanico v. People, G.R. No. 198753, 25 March 2015
Ramirez v. People, G.R. No. 197832, 2 October 2013
Olarte v. People, G.R. No. 197731, 6 July 2015
Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOs. 183152-54, 21 January 2015
People v. Hipona, G.R. NO. 185709, 18 February 2010
Batistis v. People, G.R. No. 181571, 16 December 2009
Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No. 166995, 13 January 2014
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Piccio, G.R. Nos. 203370 & 215106, 11 April 2016
Dimakuta v. People, G.R. No. 206513, 20 October 2015
People v. Olivo, G.R. No. 177768, 27 July 2009
People v. Dueño, G.R. No. L-31102, 5 May 1979

Habeas Corpus, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court

CASE:
IN RE: Azucena L. Garcia, G.R. No. 141443, 30 August 2000

Rule 123

Rule 124
People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004
Celestial v. People, G.R. No. 214865, 19 August 2015
Ola v. People, G.R. No. 195547, 2 December 2015
Villamor v. People, G.R. No. 172110 and 181804, 1 August 2011
Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 112389-90, 1 August 1994
People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, 27 July 2011
People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 27 October 2006
People v. Bitanga, G.R. No. 159222, 26 June 2007

Rule 125
People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004

Rule 126
A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC
Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, as exception to Section2 of Rule 126
Article 129, Revised Penal Code

CASES:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, 25 August 2010
Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 204589, 19 November 2014
Laud v. People, G.R. No. 199032, 19 November 2014
Sy Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, G.R. No. 174570, 15 December 2010
Oebanda v. People, G.R. No. 208137, 8 June 2016
Mata v. Bayona, G.R. No. 50720, 26 March 1984
Ogayon v. People, G.R. No. 188794, 2 September 2015
Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co., v. Razon Alvarez, G.R. No. 179408, 5 March 2014
Ambre v. People, G.R. No. 191532, 15 August 2012
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency v. Brodett, G.R. No. 196390, 28 September 2011
People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, 30 July 2014
Comerciante v. People, G.R. No. 205926, 22 July 2015

Page 20 of 21
Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 209387, 11 January 2016
People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, 16 June 2010
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., v. Romars International Gases Copr., G.R. No. 189669
Nogales v. People, G.R. No. 191080, 21 November 2011
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, 29 August 2012
Worldwide Web Corp. v. People, G.R. No. 161106, 161266, 13 January 2014
People v. Pancho, G.R. No. 206910, 14 October 2015
People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, 11 November 2015
Nala v. Barroso, Jr., G.R. No. 153087, 7 August 2003
Prudente v. Dayring, G.R. No. 82870, 14 December 1989
Asian Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-25232, 20 December 1973
Peoplev. Estrada, G.R. No. 124461, 25 September 1998
People v. Salanguit, G.R. Nos. 133254-55, 19 April 2001
WHO v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, 29 November 1972
People v. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, 29 September 2004
Lacadin v. Mangino, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1346, 9 July 2003
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, 15 January 2002
People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, 21 January 1991
People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126379, 26 June 1998

A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, 30 January 2002

CASES:
Balayon, Jr. v. Dinopol, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1969, 15 June 2006
Yao, Sr., v. People, G.R. No. 168306, 19 June 2007
Century Chinese Medicine Co., v. People, G.R. No. 188526, 11 November 2013

Cybercrime Law insofar as Section 4(a)(1) as discussed in Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, G.R.
Nos. 203335, 203299, 203306, 203359, 203378, 203391, 203407, 203440, 203453, 203454,
203469, 203501, 203509, 203515, 203518, 18 February 2014

Rule 127
Babala v. Abaño, G.R. No. L-4600, 28 February 1952
Santos, Jr. v. Flores, G.R. Nos. L-18251-52 and L-18260, 31 August 1962
Orbeta v. Sotto, G.R. No. 39562, 27 September 1993
People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 41036, 27 September 1934
Famcar, Inc. v. De Leon, G.R. No. L-1329, 15 May 1947
Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tzria-Infante, G.R. No. 144740, 31 August 2005
Tolentino v. Carlos, G.R. No. 46180, 30 August 1938

Page 21 of 21