1.

) Cite a jurisprudence on jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

MANUEL S. ISIP, Petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R.
No. 170298, June 26, 2007
Manuel and his wife Marrietta were charged with several counts of Estafa and
BP 22 for allegedly defrauding Atty. Leonardo Jose and misappropriating several
pieces of jewellery. According to the complainant, all the transactions happened
in his ancestral house in Cavite City while he was on leave from his work at the
Bureau of Customs, hence the case was filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Cavite City. In their defense, Manuel and Marrietta alleged that the transactions
if indeed there was any, happened in Manila, where Atty. Leonardo was then
living in his condominium. After trial, the RTC convicted them for estafa, which
they appealed to the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Marrietta died. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC, and held that the
transactions occurred in Cavite City, as shown by numerous pieces of evidence.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Manuel argues that the RTC and CA
should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Mere convenience
suggests that all the transactions occurred in Manila, since he and his late wife
were residents of Manila. It does not follow that since complainant have an
ancestral house in Cavite City, the transactions occurred there.
The Supreme Court:
The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is
jurisdictional The place where the crime was committed determines not only the
venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a
fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases,
the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 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. Furthermore, the
jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take
cognizance of the case. However, 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
In the case at bar, we, like the RTC and the Court of Appeals, are convinced
that the venue was properly laid in the RTC of Cavite City. The complainant had
sufficiently shown that the transaction covered by Criminal Case No. 136-84 took
place in his ancestral home in Cavite City when he was on approved leave of
absence from the Bureau of Customs. Since it has been shown that venue was

properly laid, it is now petitioners task to prove otherwise, for it is his claim that
the transaction involved was entered into in Manila. The age-old but familiar
rule that he who alleges must prove his allegations applies.

In the instant case, petitioner failed to establish by sufficient and competent

evidence that the transaction happened in Manila. Petitioner argues that since
he and his late wife actually resided in Manila, convenience alone unerringly
suggests that the transaction was entered into in Manila. We are not persuaded.
The fact that Cavite City is a bit far from Manila does not necessarily mean that
the transaction cannot or did not happen there. Distance will not prevent any
person from going to a distant place where he can procure goods that he can sell
so that he can earn a living. This is true in the case at bar. It is not improbable
or impossible for petitioner and his wife to have gone, not once, but twice in one
day, to Cavite City if that is the number of times they received pieces of jewelry
from complainant. Moreover, the fact that the checks issued by petitioners late
wife in all the transactions with complainant were drawn against accounts with
banks in Manila or Makati likewise cannot lead to the conclusion that the
transactions were not entered into in Cavite City.
It is axiomatic that when it comes to credibility, the trial courts assessment
deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with
arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.
The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the
witnesses deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better
position than the appellate court to evaluate properly testimonial evidence. It is
to be pointed out that the findings of fact of the trial court have been affirmed by
the Court of Appeals. It is settled that when the trial courts findings have been
affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and
binding upon this Court. In the case at bar, we find no compelling reason to
reverse the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and to
apply the exception. We so hold that there is sufficient evidence to show that
the particular transaction took place in Cavite City.
2.) Criminal cases under the jurisdiction of MTC, RTC, CA, and SC
Municipal Trial Courts
a.) Exclusive Original
a. All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within
territorial jurisdiction.
b. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offenses.

c. In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine not

exceeding P4,000.
d. Offenses not falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
where none of the principal accused is occupying positions
corresponding to salary grade lower than 27.
b.) Regional Trial Courts
a. Exclusive
i. Criminal cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, or body.
ii. Special RTC to try cases involving heinous crimes under RA
7659
iii. This includes cases where the penalty provided by law
exceeds 6 years of imprisonment irrespective of the fine.
iv. In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, RTC
shall have jurisdiction if the amount of the fine exceeds
P4,000.00
b. Appellate
i. All criminal cases decided by ATC.
c.) Court of Appeals
a. Original jurisdiction to issue writs and mandamus, prohibitions,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warrants.
b. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgements of the RTC
c. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all final judgement, decision,
resolution, orders, or awards of the Regional Trial Courts and quasiijudicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards, or commissions,
including SEC, The Employees Compensation Commission, and the
Civil Service Comission.
d.) Supreme Court
a. Shall have original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers, and consuls.
b. Original and exclusive jurisdiction in petition for issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus of the Court of Appeals.
c. All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed
is death or life imprisonment,
3.) Cases that are governed by the summary rules
a. Criminal Violation of traffic rules and regulations.
b. Criminal violations of rental laws.
c. Criminal violations of city or municipal ordinances.
d. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or a fine
not exceeding P1,000.00 or both.
4.) Cases under the jurisdiction of the first level courts governed by regular rules.
a. Exclusive Original
i. All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within
territorial jurisdiction.

ii. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such offenses.
iii. In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine not
exceeding P4,000.
iv. Offenses not falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
where none of the principal accused is occupying positions
corresponding to salary grade lower than 27.
5.) Under the Local Government Code, what are the cases not covered by the
requisite confrontation between parties before the lupon chairman?
a. Where one party is the government or any subdivision.
b. Where one party is a public officer/employee and dispute relates to the
performance of this duty.
c. Offenses punishable by exceeding one year of imprisonment and a fine
exceeding P5,000.00.
d. Offenses where there is no private offended party.
e. Where disputes involves real property located differently, unless they
agree to amicable settlement.
f. Disputes between parties who reside in different cities, except where
the barangays are adjoining and parties agree their differences to
amicable settlement.
g. Such other disputes which the president may determine in the interest
of justice or upon the recommendation of the secretary of justice.
6.) Give an example of an information.
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
10th
Judicial Region Branch 69
Cagayan de Oro City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 08282NPS NO.X-06-INV010A-0037-Versus-For: ESTAFA THRUFALSIFICATIONOF PUBLIC DOCUMENTAPIPA
G. GURO, Accused,
*********************************************************************************
********
INFORMATION
The undersigned Associate Prosecution Attorney II accuses Apipa G. Guro of the
crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document, defined and penalized

under Article 315, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 172 and Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on October 31, 2007 in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, accused Apipa G. Guro [hereinafter
Accused] misrepresenting herself to be Doa Aiqa Macarambon-Bacsarpa,
applied for a loan with South Bank in the amount of PhP 5,000,000.00. A parcel
of land located at Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City, covered by Certificate of Title
No. T-178439, in the name of Don Mario Bacsarpa married to Doa Aiqa
Macarambon-Bacsarpa was then offered by the accused as collateral. The
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously falsify the deed of
real estate mortgage and the promissory note corresponding to the said loan by
forging their signatures when in truth and in fact they did not so participate, to
the damage and prejudice of the complaining bank and the Spouses Bacsarpas
in the aforesaid sum of PhP 5,000,000.00.Contrary to law.

7.) Discuss the extent of authority of a public prosecutor in prosecuting criminal

cases.
All actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the discretion and control of the prosecutor. In cases
of unavailability of a public prosecutor, a private prosecutor may take
action, provided authorization of the chief of the prosecution office.
8.) What are the cases enumerated in article 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil
Code of the Pilippines which may proceed independently of the criminal
action?
Article 32
Freedom of Religion, Speedy trial, freedom of the press, freedom
from arbitrary detention, freedom from suffrage: right against
deprivation of property without due process of law; right to just
compensation, right to equal protection of the law, right ot be secured
in ones papers, persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures; liberty of abode; privacy of communication and
correspondence, the right to be a member of associations; right to a
peaceable assemble to petition the government for redress or
grievances; right for voluntary servitude; right against excessive bail;
right as the accused to be heard by the counsel.
Article 33

In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injury, a civil action

for damages entirely and separately, and distinct from the criminal
actions.
Article 34
When a member of a city or a municipal police force refuses or
fails to render and or protect any person in case of danger to his life or
property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages and
the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily liable for damages.
Article 2176
Whoever by art or omission causes damages to another, these
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages done. Such
fault or negligence, of there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by this
chapter.
9.) Discuss the effect of death of the accused on civil action.
In accordance to sec. 4 of rule 111, the death of the accused after the
arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall
extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However,
independent civil actions may continue to be against the estate or
legal representative of the accused.
A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be
enforced in a manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting
claims against the estate of the deceased.
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed
without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against
the estate of the deceased.
10.)

Cite a jurisprudence on preliminary investigation.

Sebastian Serag vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163818, October 20,

2005
11.)

Cite instances when citizens arrest may be affected

a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
b. When an offense has in face just been committed and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a

penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgement or
temporary confined while his case is pending or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.
12.)
State the conditions or requirements of the bail
a. The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless
cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until
promulgation of the judgement of the RTC irrespective of whether the
case was originally filed in or appealed.
b. The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required
by the court or the rules.
c. The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification
and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be
presented thereat. In such case, the case may proceed in absentia.
d. The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution
of the final judgement. The original papers shall state the full name
and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking, and the
conditions required by this section.
13.)
State the rules on posting bail when accused is found guilty of the
crime.
a. Bail is not allowed:
If after conviction of an offense that carries capital punishment
such as death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
b. Bail is discretionary
If after conviction of an offense that carries punishment of 6-20
years of imprisonment, subject to certain conditions.
c. Bail is a matter of right:
If the rest of the cases; in fact even if the offense is capital
provided that the evidence of guilt is not strong.
In those instances where bail is discretionary in the RTC, a
person may be dined bail if he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
habitually delinquent, or if the accused is guilty of reiteracion.
The accused may also be denied bail if he has previously
escaped or there is probability of flight if he is released.
14.)

What are the rights of the accused during arraignment?

a. The accused must be arraigned before the court where complaint was
filed, arraignment shall be made in open court in the language or
dialect known to him and asking him if he pleads guilty or not.
b. The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally
enter his plea.
c. Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to
counsel and ask him if he desires to have one.

15.)

16.)

What are the grounds of quashing on information or complaint?

a. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense
b. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
c. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged.
d. The officer who filed the information has no authority to do so.
e. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
f. That more than one offense is charged except when as single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law.
g. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished.
h. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or jurisdiction.
i. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his expressed consent.
When does a case provisionally dismissed become final?
In accordance to sec. 8 of rule 117 of the rules of court:

17.)

i. The provisional dismissal of the offenses punishable by

imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
amount, or both shall become permanent one (1) year after
issuance of the order without the case having been revived.
ii. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more
than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become
permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the
case having been revived.
State the rule on demurrer to evidence.
The court may dismiss demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with
or without leave of court.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court,
the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer
to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right
to present evidence and submits the case for judgement on the basis
of the evidence for the prosecution.
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall
specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within the period of 5
days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may approve
the motion within 5 days from its receipt.
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to
evidence within a similar period from its receipt.

The order denying the notion for leave of court to file demurrer or the
demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before
judgement.
18.)

19.)
a.

b.

20.)
a.
b.

Who are entitled to be a state witness?

The court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with
their consents so that they may be witnesses for the state when after
requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement
of each proposed state witness ata hearing in support of the
discharge, the court is satisfied that:
i. There is an absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused
whose discharge is requested.
ii. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
presentation of the offense committed, except the testimony of
said accused.
iii. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated
in its material points.
iv. Said accused does not appear to be most guilty.
v. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
invoking moral turpitude.
What are the contents of judgement?
Judgement of conviction.
i. The legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts
committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating
circumstances which attended its commission.
ii. The participation of the accused in the offense, whether as
principal, accomplice, or accessory.
iii. The penalty imposed upon the accused.
iv. The civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or
omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended
party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability
by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.
Judgement of acquittal:
i. Shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely
failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
What are the grounds for a new trial?
The errors of law or irregularities have been committed during the trial
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused.
That the new and material evidence has been discovered which the
accused could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and
produced at the trial, which if introduced would probably change the
judgement.