8/12/2019 Criminal Procedure and Jurisprudence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-procedure-and-jurisprudence 1/5

VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES IS JURISDICTIONAL

The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional.[14] The place

where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element

of jurisdiction.[15] 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 takenplace 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.[ Isip vs people Gr. No.170298 June 26, 2007]

JURISDICTION TO HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER

Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases within the

 jurisdiction of second level courts. Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular specifically provides that “hold-

departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional

trial courts.”  Clearly then, criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts do not fall

within the ambit of the circular, and it was an error on the part of respondent judge to have issued one

in the instant case[ MONDEJAR VS BUBAN AM NO. MTJ-01-1349]

JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of thecomplaint or information, and the offense must have been committed or any one of its essential

ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.[22]

 Considering that the Information

failed to allege the venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360, the Court finds that the RTC of

Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting petitioners of the crime of

libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its filing with the court of

competent jurisdiction.[ FOZ VS PEOPLE OCT. 9 2009 GR. NO. 167764]

The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations, as provided for in

this chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or

city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties

actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of

the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission

of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or

province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not

hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or

city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is

printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall

8/12/2019 Criminal Procedure and Jurisprudence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-procedure-and-jurisprudence 2/5

be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the

commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published

JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in all

cases involving:

A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-

Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII

of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials

occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or

interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of

regional director and higher, otherwise classified as grade “27” and

higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989

(Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors,

members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial

treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city

department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the

sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,

engineers, and other city department heads.

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupyingthe position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval

captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of

higher rank;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their

assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of

the Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers

of government-owned or controlled corporations, state

universities or educational institutions or foundations;

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade

“27” and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of

1989;

8/12/2019 Criminal Procedure and Jurisprudence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-procedure-and-jurisprudence 3/5

 

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions

of the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions,

without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade “27”

and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of

1989.

B. Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with other crimes

committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this

section in relation to their office.

C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive

Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.

A simple analysis after a plain reading of the above provision shows that those public officials

enumerated in Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, may not only be charged in the

Sandiganbayan with violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379 or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII

of the Revised Penal Code, but also with other offenses or felonies in relation to their office. The

said other offenses and felonies are broad in scope but are limited only to those that are

committed in relation to the public official or employee's office. This Court had ruled that as

long as the offense charged in the information is intimately connected with the office and is

alleged to have been perpetrated while the accused was in the performance, though improper

or irregular, of his official functions, there being no personal motive to commit the crime and

had the accused not have committed it had he not held the aforesaid office, the accused is held

to have been indicted for “an offense committed in relation” to his office  [People vsSandiganbayan GR.No. 167304]

Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in

relation to their office. We see no plausible or sensible reason to excludeestafa as one of the

offenses included in Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606. Plainly, estafa is one of those other

felonies. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is

committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as

amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.[ serrana vs

sandiganbayan]

We already held that municipal mayors fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of theSandiganbayan. Nor can Barangay Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel claim that since he is not a

municipal mayor, he is outside the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A.

No. 8249,[35]

 provides that it is only in cases where “none of the accused (underscoring supplied)

are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ‘27’ or higher”[36]

 that “exclusive original

 jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal

trial court, and municipal circuit court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective

 jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.”[37]

 Note that under the 1991

8/12/2019 Criminal Procedure and Jurisprudence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-procedure-and-jurisprudence 4/5

Local Government Code, Mayor Esquivel has a salary grade of 27.[38]

 Since Barangay Captain

Esquivel is the co-accused in Criminal Case No. 24777 of Mayor Esquivel, whose position falls

under salary grade 27, the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in assuming

 jurisdiction over said criminal case, as well as over Criminal Case No. 24778, involving both of

them.[ Esquivel vs Ombudsman Sept.17, 2002]

JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN

Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. – The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,

functions and duties:

(1)  Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission

of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears

to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases

cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may

take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation

of such cases; 

As aforementioned, Congress itself acknowledged the significant role played by the Office of

Ombudsman when it enacted Republic Act No. 6770. Section 15 (1) of said law gives the

Ombudsman primary jurisdiction  over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and authorizes

him to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency, the investigation of such

cases. This power to take over a case at any time is not given to other investigative bodies. All

this means that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate cases cognizable by

theSandiganbayan is not co-equal with other investigative bodies, such as the DOJ. The

Ombudsman can delegate the power but the delegate cannot claim equal power. [ Dept. of

Justice vs Liwag Gr. No. 149311 Feb. 11, 2005]

The foregoing ruling of the Court has been reiterated in Camanag v. Guerrero.[9]

  More recently,in Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera ,

[10] the Court, basing its ratio decidendi  on its ruling

in Acop and Camanag, declared that the OSP is “merely a component of the Office of the

Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and control, and upon authority of the

Ombudsman” and ruled that under R.A. No. 6770, the power to preventively suspend is lodged

only with the Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman.[11]

  The Court's ruling in Acop that the

authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute based on R.A. No. 6770 was authorized by the

Constitution was also made the foundation for the decision in Perez v. Sandiganbayan ,[12]

  where

it was held that the power to prosecute carries with it the power to authorize the filing of

informations, which power had not been delegated to the OSP. It is, therefore, beyond cavil

that under the Constitution, Congress was not proscribed from legislating the grant of additional

powers to the Ombudsman or placing the OSP under the Office of the Ombudsman.[ Lazatin vs

desierto G.R. No. 147097]

Under Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act

of 1989), the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a

public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or

inefficient. It has been the consistent ruling of the Court not to interfere with the

Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as his rulings are

supported by substantial evidence.  Envisioned as the champion of the people and preserver of

8/12/2019 Criminal Procedure and Jurisprudence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-procedure-and-jurisprudence 5/5

the integrity of public service, he has wide latitude in exercising his powers and is free from

intervention from the three branches of government. This is to ensure that his Office is

insulated from any outside pressure and improper influence. [ Presidential ad hoc Fact finding

Committee vs. Disierto july 24, 2007]

The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and

unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or

omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a

distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular

courts. It has been held that the clause "any illegal act or omission of any public official" is broad

enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee.[Castro vs Deloria]

Review of Decision of the Ombudsman:

Well-settled is the rule that this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's

exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons that

indicate otherwise. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and

prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman, but uponpracticality as well. A contrary rule would encourage innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of

investigatory proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman, which would grievously hamper the

functions of the office and the courts, in much the same way that courts would be swamped by

a deluge of cases if they have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of public

prosecutors each time they decide to file an information or dismiss a complaint by a private

complainant.

INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:

Of course, this rule is not absolute. The aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari  under Rule 65

of the Rules of Court when the finding of the Ombudsman is tainted with grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as what the petitioner did in this case, consistent with our

ruling in Collantes v. Marcelo,[25]

 where we laid down the following exceptions to the rule:

1. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the

accused;

2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression

or multiplicity of actions;

3. When there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice;

4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;

5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;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 the 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.