I. Basic Concepts (C1-Book)

Question 1

what is criminal procedure?

LB

Answer 1

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

People v. Lacson

Question 2

The adversarial system should be distinguished from the ________ where the court plays a very active role and is not limited to the evidence presented before it

Answer 2

inquisitorial system

Question 3

insofar as interpretation of the rules on criminal procedure, how are they to be construed?

LB

Answer 3

being part of the Rules of Court,

“liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding

R1, S6

Question 4

Cariaga was convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to imprisonment. Unfortunately, her former counsel committed a procedural error by erroneously appealing the case to the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan. Recognizing the mistake, Cenita filed a petition before the Supreme Court, invoking Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the dismissal of cases erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals. Cenita pleaded for the relaxation of this rule, requesting the Supreme Court to direct the Court of Appeals to forward the records of the case to the Sandiganbayan.

If you were the SC, how would you rule?

Answer 4

I will grant the plea

In the case of PP v Cariaga, the SC relaxed the rules recognized that the case was a criminal case which warranted the relaxation of the rules.

Question 5

Requirements of Due Process in Criminal Proceedings

LB

Answer 5

*Monte v. Savellano

• court/tribunal w/ judicial power to hear and determine the matter
• JD is lawfully acquired over person of the accussed
• accussed is given opportunity to be heard
• judgment is given after lawful hearing.

[book]
1. that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;

2. that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused;
3. that the accused is given opportunity to be heard; and
4. that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.

Question 6

Requisites before a court can acquire JD over criminal cases

Answer 6

• JD over the SM
• JD over the territory
• JD over the person of the accused

Question 7

refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular
criminal case

Answer 7

JD over the subject matter

Question 8

refers to the authority of the court over the person charged. This kind of
jurisdiction requires that “the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the
court

Answer 8

JD over the person of the accused

[gpt]
forum - often used to describe the location or venue where legal proceedings take place

Question 9

This element requires that the offense must have been committed
within the court’s territorial jurisdiction

Answer 9

JD over territory

Question 10

JD over territory is determined by:

Answer 10

• facts alleged in complaint or
• information where the offense charged was committed

==========================
[gpt]
complaint - filed by complainant
information - filed by the public prosecutor

Question 11

where is the venue of criminal cases?

Answer 11

where the offense took place in the territorial JD of the court, that court is the venue where criminal action shall be instituted

[book]
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is in that court where the criminal action shall be instituted

Question 12

Macasaet, a resident of City A, was charged with a criminal offense in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of City B. The complaint alleged that the offense took place within the jurisdiction of City B. Macasaet’s defense argued that the RTC of City B lacked territorial jurisdiction over the case, asserting that the alleged offense occurred outside the court’s limited territory.

During the trial, evidence was presented that contradicted the location stated in the complaint. The evidence established that the offense was, in fact, committed in City C, which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of City B. Macasaet moved for the dismissal of the case, citing the lack of jurisdiction.

If you were the court, how will you rule? LB

Answer 12

I will dismiss the case

In the case of Macasaet v. PP, the court ruled that due to the lack of JD over territory, it warranted the dismissal of the case.

Applying the facts to the case, since evidenced adduced contradicted the complaint stating that the crime was committed in City C, this court shall dismiss the case for want of JD

[book]
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory and if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction

Question 13

what are the exceptions when a court can try a case not w/in it’s territorial JD? (pt.1)

Answer 13

where the offense committed is from Art. 2 of the RPC,

SFION
S - ship
F - forgery/counterfeiting
I - introduction of the counterfeited material
O - Public Officer/Emp in the exercise of their functions
N - national Security or Law of Nations

• offense cognizable in any philippine court
• even if committed outside of philippines

offense cognizable by the court where criminal action was first filed

[book]
the Philippine Archipelago but also outside of its jurisdiction against offenders who:

• Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
• Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
• Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned above; While being public officers and employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
• Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
  law of nations.

[book]
Where the offense was committed under the circumstances enumerated in Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense is cognizable before Philippine courts even if committed outside of the territory of the Philippines. In this case, the offense shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed (Sec. 15[d], Rule 110, Rules of Court)

Question 14

Enumerate crimes against national security.

SFION

Answer 14

Crimes of:

(i) treason,
(ii) conspiracy and proposal to commit treason,
(iii) misprision of treason,
(iv) espionage,
(v) inciting to war and giving motives for reprisal,
(vi) violation of neutrality,
(vii) correspondence with hostile country, and
(viii) flight to enemy’s country

(Articles 114-121, Revised Penal Code)

[GPT]
(i) Treason (Article 114):

Treason is a crime committed by a person who, owing allegiance to the Philippines, levies war against the government or adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
(ii) Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason (Article 115):

Conspiracy to commit treason involves an agreement among two or more persons to wage war against the government or to adhere to the enemies.
Proposal to commit treason involves the act of proposing or suggesting the commission of treason.
(iii) Misprision of Treason (Article 116):

Misprision of treason is committed when a person, having knowledge of the commission of treason, conceals or fails to disclose it to the proper authorities.
(iv) Espionage (Article 117):

Espionage involves gathering, transmitting, or losing information prejudicial to the safety of the Philippines with intent to aid an enemy.
(v) Inciting to War and Giving Motives for Reprisals (Article 118):

Inciting to war involves inducing others to begin a war against the Philippines.
Giving motives for reprisals involves publicly and maliciously giving any motives for reprisals against the Philippines or any of its citizens.
(vi) Violation of Neutrality (Article 119):

Violation of neutrality involves engaging in war against a country with which the Philippines is at peace, or in aiding the enemy of the Philippines in the hostilities.
(vii) Correspondence with Hostile Country (Article 120):

Correspondence with a hostile country involves communicating with the enemy during a war, with the intent to aid the enemy.
(viii) Flight to Enemy’s Country (Article 121):

Flight to the enemy’s country involves leaving the Philippines to join the enemy with the intention of betraying the Republic of the Philippines.

Question 15

What are the crimes against law of nations?

SFION

Answer 15

• piracy (122)
• mutiny (123)

Question 16

what are the exceptions when a court can try a case not w/in it’s territorial JD? (pt.2)

Answer 16

• SC changes venue/place of trial

[book]
Where the Supreme Court, pursuant to its constitutional powers orders a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice (Section 5[4J, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines).

Question 17

what are the exceptions when a court can try a case not w/in it’s territorial JD? (pt.3)

Answer 17

where an offense is committed in public/private vehicle (aircraft or land vehicle) en route, tried in court of any municipality or territory where vehicle passed during its trip.

[book]
Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or private vehicle in the course of its trip, the criminal action need not be instituted in the actual place where the offense was committed.

It may be instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or territory where said train, aircraft, or vehicle passed during its trip. The crime may also be instituted and tried in the place of departure and arrival (Section
15[b], Rule 110, Rules of Court).

Question 18

what are the exceptions when a court can try a case not w/in it’s territorial JD? (pt.4)

Answer 18

where offense committed in water craft, offense is cognizable;
- court of the first port entry or
- municipality/trtry where seacraft passed during voage

[GPT]
first port of entry - criminal case can be brought before and adjudicated by the court located in the first port where the vessel arrives or docks after the commission of the offense.

[book]
Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of
its voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried not necessarily in the place of the commission of the crime. It may be brought and tried in the court of the first port of entry, or in the municipality or territory where the vessel passed during the voyage (Section 15[c], Rule 110, Rules of Court).

Question 19

what are the exceptions when a court can try a case not w/in it’s territorial JD? (pt.5)

Answer 19

where offense cognizable by the Sandiganbayan JD depends on:
- nature of offense &
- position of accused

GEN:
the offense need not be tried in the place where the act was committed but where the court actually sits in Quezon City

EXC:
RA 8249, allows venue to be outside Metro Manila or even outside trtrial boundaries of Philippines

[GPT-EXC]
This provision allows for the possibility of holding Sandiganbayan sessions outside of Metro Manila or even outside the territorial boundaries of the Philippines if the greater convenience of the accused and witnesses or other compelling considerations necessitates it. The presiding justice is given the authority to authorize any divisions of the court to hold sessions in different geographical regions when deemed necessary for the interests of justice.

[book]
Where the case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction of which depends upon the nature of the offense and the position of the accused (Subido v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122641, January 20, 1997), the offense need not be tried in the place where the act was committed but where the court actually sits in Quezon City.

Under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan), when the greater convenience of the accused and of the witnesses, or other compelling considerations so require, a case originating from one geographical region may be heard in another geographical region.

For this purpose, the presiding justice shall authorize any divisions of the court to hold sessions at any time and place outside Metro Manila and, where the interest of justice so requires, outside the territorial boundaries of the Philippines

Question 20

Juan, a high-ranking government official, is accused of committing a corruption-related offense. The nature of the offense falls within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

The alleged offense occurred in a province in the Visayas region, far from Quezon City where the Sandiganbayan is located.

As part of Juan’s legal team, what can you do to ensure the convenience and the proper carriage of justice of Juan’s case?

Answer 20

Based on RA 8249, I will argue that the presiding judge (head of SB) shall authorize and any division of the court to:
- to hold sessions at any time and
- place outside Metro Manila,

where the interest of justice requires and convenience of the accused so requires

Question 21

Certainly, here’s a fictional BAR question fact pattern based on the information provided:

Juan, a businessman, and Pedro, a public official, have been engaged in a heated business dispute for months. Frustrated by the ongoing conflict, Juan decides to vent his frustrations on social media. He posts a lengthy statement accusing Pedro of embezzling public funds during his time in office and engaging in corrupt practices.

Pedro, deeply offended by the post, decides to take legal action against Juan for written defamation. The libelous article was posted on Juan’s social media profile, accessible to the public. At the time of the alleged offense, Pedro was a public officer holding office in City X, but he resided in City

which court has territorial JD? the RTC where the libelous article was published? The residence of the official? (BAR 1995)

Answer 21

The court that has territorial JD to receive the filing of a criminal action is City X where the public official Pedro holds office at the time of the commission of the offense and not where the official resides.

[book]
Where the offense is written defamation, the criminal action need not necessarily be filed in the RTC of the province or city where the alleged libelous article was printed and first published. It may be filed in the province or city where the offended party held office at the time of the commission of the offense if he is a public officer, or in the province or city where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense in case the offended party is a private individual (Article 360)

Question 22

Restate Article 360 as in the case of Agbayani v. Sayo

Answer 22

1. for both public and private individuals, may file in the RTC where libelous article was first published and printed
2. for private individual, may also file in RTC where he resides at the time of the commission of offense
3. for public official in Manila, may file in the RTC of Manila
4. for public official outside of Manila, may file in the RTC where he held office AT THE TIME of the commission of the offense

[book]

(a) Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action maybe filed in the Court of First Instance (RTC) of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
published.

(b) If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance (RTC) of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the
offense.

(c) If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance (RTC) of Manila.

(d) If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance (RTC) of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of
the offense (Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009).