Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is fatal.

An objection based upon that ground maybe interposed at any stage of the proceeding (United States vs. Jayme). Jurisdiction is the authority by which judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases (People vs. Mariano). The jurisdiction of court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. (People vs. Mariano). When both courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a particular case; the court which first takes cognizance thereof acquires jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the other (People vs. Mariano).

The Ombudsman is empowered under the law to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public official. However this authority is not exclusive authority but a concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged (Sanchez vs. Demetriou). Where the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to quash the information but only on that ground. If he raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court (Sanchez vs. Demetriou). The prosecutor cannot be compelled to include in the information a person against whom he believes no sufficient evidence of guilt is exists. The decision of the prosecutor may be reversed or modified by the Secretary of Justice or in special cases by the President of the Philippines (Sanchez vs. Demetriou). A warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses (Allado vs. Diokno). Before issuing warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof (Allado vs. Diokno).

The fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence has authority to do so; and courts that grant the same commit no error (Crespo vs. Mogul). The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. If a reinvestigation is to be conducted, the permission of the Court must be secured (Crespo vs. Mogul). Where the Court refuses to grant the fiscals motion to dismiss, including a case where the Secretary of Justice ordered the fiscal to move to dismiss the case, the fiscal should continue to appear in the case although he may turn over the presentation of evidence to the private prosecutor; but still under his direction and control (Crespo vs. Mogul).

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and it was committed by the suspects. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the

suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. (Webb vs. De Leon). Probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner (Webb vs. De Leon). Searching examination of the witnesses is not necessary before issuing warrants of arrest against them and the issuance of an order of arrest is not required prior to issuance of a warrant of arrest (Webb vs. De Leon). An appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a resolution finding probable cause shall not hold the filing of the information in court (Webb vs. De Leon).

2. In criminal cases, motion to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. 3. Motion to quash a warrant of arrest. (Miranda vs. Tuliao) Even if the petition for review of the resolution of the asst. prosecutor was filed with the Sec. of Justice before the issuance of the warrants of arrest, thus the pendency of the petition for the review of the prosecutors resolution is not a ground to quash the warrant of arrest (Miranda vs. Tuliao).

Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail. It is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance (Miranda vs. Tuliao). General Rule: A person applying for admission to bail must be in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty. A person who has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court has no right to invoke the processes of that court. One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. EXCEPTIONS: Which only leads to a special appearance. 1. In civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

Once the information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the Court; but it does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power over his subordinates. The Secretary of Justice is merely advised, as far as practicable, to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutors finding when information is already filed in court. Thus the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, but it is not binding on the court (Chan vs. Sec. of Justice citing Crespo vs. Mogul). The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa, as provided under Section 4 (B) of P. D. No. 1606, Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials or employees xxx in relation to their office (Serana vs. People of the Philippines).

When the Fiscal refuses to file an information to include a person as an accused despite the fact that the evidence clearly warrants such action, the offended party has the following remedies: 1. File an action for mandamus, in case of grave abuse of discretion of the fiscal, to compel the latter to file such information. 2. Lodge a new complaint against the offenders. 3. Take up the matter with the Secretary of Justice who may take measures in the interest of justice. 4. Institute administrative charges against the erring prosecutor. 5. File criminal charges under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code. 6. File a civil action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code. 7. May secure the appointment of another prosecutor. 8. May institute another criminal action if no double jeopardy is involved.

Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are general not available, except: 1. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused. 2. When necessary for the administration of justice. orderly

3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice. 4. When the acts of the officer are w/o or in excess of authority. 5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, regulation or ordinance. 6. When double apparent. jeopardy is clearly

7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense. 8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution. 9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance. 10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. 11. When a preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of the petitioners.