Criminal Procedure: Jurisdiction


  1. Supreme Court
    1. No Original Jurisdiction over Criminal cases.
    2. Appellate Jurisdiction
      1. by Petition for Review
      2. by Notice of Appeal
  2. Court of Appeals
    1. No Original Jurisdiction over Criminal cases.
    2. Appellate Jurisdiction
      1. by Petition for Review
      2. by Notice of Appeal
  3. Sandiganbayan
    1. Original and Exclusive jurisdiction under the following guidelines:
      1. What offense was committed
        1. R.A. 3019 – Anti Graft and Corrupt Practice Act
        2. R.A. 1379 – the law on Ill-gotten Wealth
        3. Chapter II, Title VII, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code – Bribery
        4. Executive Order 1,2,14, 14-A – PCGG cases
        5. Estafa under the Hannah Serana case, 542 SCRA January 22, 2008 (Full Text)
        6. Falsification under the Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan case, 603 SCRA (Full Text)
      2. Who committed the offense/crime
        1. Public officers in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Government with salary grade 27 according to R.A. 6758 – The Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
          1. Escobal vs Gachitorena, 422 SCRA (Full Text)
            1. For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the said law over crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to merely allege in the Information that the crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office because that would be a conclusion of law.
        2. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.
          1. Estafa under the Hannah Serana case, 542 SCRA January 22, 2008 (Full Text)
            1. the Board Of Regent performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.
          2. Ramiscal vs Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA (Full Text)
            1.  The SC ruled that the AFP-RSBS is a government-owned and controlled corporation, and that its funds are in the nature of public funds. Under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by presidents, directors, trustees or managers of government owned or controlled corporations. Under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, whether simple or complexed with other crimes.
        3. Private individuals committing the offense/crime with public officers.
          1. People vs Henry T. Go, March 25, 2014 (Full Text)
            1. The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone.
          2. People vs Benipayo, 586 SCRA (Full Text)
            1. declare herein that the law, as it still stands at present, dictates that criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. A subsequent enactment of a law defining the jurisdiction of other courts cannot simply override, in the absence of an express repeal or modification, the specific provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction over defamations in writing or by similar means.
        4. How was the offense/crime committed
          1. Lacson vs Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA (Full Text)
            1. that the phrase “committed in relation to public office ” does not appear in the information, which only signifies that the said phrase is not what determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused’s official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.
          2. Sanchez vs Demetriou, 227 SCRA (Full Text)
            1. Public office is not of the essence of murder. The taking of human life is either murder or homicide whether done by a private citizen or public servant, and the penalty is the same except when the perpetrator. being a public functionary took advantage of his office, as alleged in this case, in which event the penalty is increased. But the use or abuse of office does not adhere to the crime as an element; and even as an aggravating circumstance, its materiality arises not from the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that the criminals are public officials but from the manner of the commission of the crime

          3. Hannah Serana vs Sandiganbayan, 542 SCRA (Full Text)
            1. It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People, We held that while the first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of law.
    2. Appellate Jurisdiction

      1. All cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction over cases of public officers with salary grade less than 27 charge with offenses/crimes aforementioned

  4. Regional Trial Courts

    1. Original Exclusive Jurisduction

      1. all criminal cases which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court. The offense must carry a penalty of more than six years of imprisonment or Prision Major.

      2. Appellate Jurisdiction: all criminal cases from the MTC

  5. Family Courts (R.A. 8369)
    1. Exclusive original:
    a. Where a party is a minor at the time of the commission
    b. Violation against women and their children
    c. Child abuse
    d. Drug cases

  6. Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court
    1. All violations of city/municipal ordinances
    2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years
    3. Violations of traffic rules and regulations
    4. Violations of the Bouncing Check Law
    5. Damage to property with fine of not more than Php 10,000.00

  7. Courts of Muslim Mindanao (R.A. 6734 as amended by 9054)
    1. Shari’ah Circuit courts
    2. Shari’ah District courts
    3. Shari’ah Appellate courts
    *All personal, family and property relations cases between Muslims residing it the autonomous region of Muslim Mindanao

  8. What is Military Courts?
    1. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)
    2. Disnisi Jr. vs Secretary of Justice, February 18, 2014, 716 SCRA (Full Text)


One thought on “Criminal Procedure: Jurisdiction

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: