Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

RIANO'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Coggle Diagram

- - - - COMPLAINT-INFORMATION
        
        CRIMES ARE COMMITTED AGAINST THE ENTIRE SOCIAL ORDER, THUS, AGAINST THE "PEOPLE"
        A criminal offense is deemed to have been committed against the entire social order; therefore, the complaint or information is filed in the name of the "People of the Philippines"
        
        FILING COMPLAINT/INFO IS NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A CRIMINAL ACTION
        Filing a written complaint or information in court is a necessary condition to the adjudication of a criminal action.
        
        COMPLAINT vs INFORMATION
        A complaint is a sworn written statement subscribed by persons mentioned in the Rules.
        An information is a written accusation subscribed by the prosecutor.
        
        Who are those persons mentioned in the rules?
        
        JURISDICTION
        
        COMPLAINT/INFO MUST BE FILED WITH COURT WHICH EXERCISES JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSE CHARGED
        The complaint/information must be filed with the court which exercises jurisdiction over the offense charged.
        
        3 KINDS OF JURISDICTION
        JURISDICTION OVER
        
        SUBJECT MATTER
        
        TERRITORY
        
        PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
        
        "JURISDICTION" = JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
        "Jurisdiction" is commonly known as "jurisdiction over the subject matter".
        
        JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER IS
        
        CONFERRED - Conferred by law
        
        DETERMINED - Determined by allegations of complaint/info**
        
        JURISDICTION OVER TERRITORY
        Refers to jurisdiction over the place of the commission of the offense
        
        CRIMINAL ACTION FILED WHERE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED or ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OCCURRED
        Requires that the criminal action be filed in the place where offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
        
        1 more item...
        
        JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
        For the court to acquire this jurisdiction, the accused must have been validly arrested or must have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
        
        Jurisdiction over the person vs Custody
        
        EVERY PERSON CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONY IS ALSO CIVILLY LIABLE
        
        GENERAL RULE:
        CIVIL ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF CIVIL LIABILITY FROM OFFENSE CHARGED DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH CRIM ACTION
        When the criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged shall also be deemed instituted with the criminal action.
        
        EXCEPTION: WAIVE, RESERVE, INSTITUTE
        Does not apply when the the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute the same separately , or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
        
        EXCEPTION:
        INDEPENDENT ACTION
        An independent civil action is not deemed instituted with the offense charged even if it arises from the same act or omission constituting the offense.
        
        RATIO
        This is because an independent civil action is an entirely separate source of liability.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Is this the same independent civil action referred to sa "reserves the right to institute the same separately"?
        
        "For a Felony", so what about crimes that are not a felony?
      - ENTITLEMENT TO SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
        All Parties are entitled to both substantive and procedural due process
        
        ALL ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
        Criminal Prosecutions involve the obligation of the State to prove the elements of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
        
        COMPLIANCE WITH RULES IS A MEANS, NOT AN END IN ITSELF. JUSTICE IS THE OBJECTIVE.
        Compliance with the rules is not an end in itself and is merely a means of dispensing the ultimate objective of every legal system i.e. justice
    - - THERE CAN BE NO CRIMINAL ACTION UNLESS A CRIME IS BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED
        The criminal litigation process presupposes the prior commission of a crime or at least the perception that a crime has been committed. This is because there can be no criminal action unless a crime is believed to have been committed.
        
        WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED, THERE IS AN OFFENDER AND, GENERALLY, THERE IS A VICTIM
        When a crime is committed, there is an offender and, generally, there is a victim.
        
        EXCEPTION: THERE MAY BE NO VICTIM
        However, a crime may also be committed by the mere possession of goods or things prohibited by law.
        
        PRIVATE PERSON AS VICTIM MAY EITHER BE NATURAL OR JURIDICAL PERSON
        The victim may be a private person, who may either be a natural or juridical person.
        
        AGAINST WHOM MAY CRIMES BE COMMITTED
        
        NATURAL PERSONS
        
        JURIDICAL PERSONS
        
        PUBLIC ORDER
        
        CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
        Crimes of homicide, murder, or parricide, for instance, are crimes committed against a natural person and are classified as crimes against persons.
        
        CRIMES MAY ALSO BE COMMITTED AGAINST JURIDICAL PERSONS
        Crimes may also be committed against juridical or artificial persons as when the offender commits theft or robbery against the property of a partnership or a corporation.
        
        CRIMES MAY EVEN BE COMMITTED AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
        Crimes may even be committed against public order like rebellion and sedition and even against national security like treason and espionage.
      - CONTACT WITH THE LAW
        
        MERE COMMISSION OF A CRIME DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
        No matter how or against whom the offense is committed, the mere commission of a crime does not automatically trigger the application of the rules on criminal procedure.
        
        ONLY WHEN OFFENDER IS IN CONTACT WITH THE LAW OR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DO THE RULES COME INTO PLAY
        The rules come into operation only when acts are initiated that would put the offender in contact with the law or the criminal justice system.
        
        WHEN IS THERE CONTACT WITH THE LAW?
        This contact with the law may start when...
        the criminal act is brought to the attention of law enforcement authorities AND
        the offender is arrested, either by virtue of a duly issued warrant or a valid warrantless arrest.
        
        WARRANTLESS ARESTS
        In not a few cases, contact with the law occurs when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant by a peace officer.
        
        MAY BE EFFECTED BY A PRIVATE PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES OF COURT
        
        When can this be done?
        
        WHEN WARRANTLESS ARREST IS LAWFUL
        
        IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO - When at the time the arrest is made, the person arrested has committed/is actually committing/is attempting to commit a crime in the presence of the person making the arrest.
        -
        
        HOT PURSUIT - An arrest made after a crime has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which engenders in him a belief that there is probable cause that the person to be arrested has committed the offense.
        
        Why is it called hot pursuit?
        
        IN ANY CASE, PERSON ARRESTED SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE NEAREST POLICE STATION or JAIL
        In any of the cited grounds for a warrantless arrest, the rules of procedure mandate that the person arrested shall, without delay, be delivered to the nearest police station or jail.
        
        CONTACT WITH THE LAW MAY OCCUR WHEN LEOs SEARCH A PLACE UNDER CONTROL OF ALLEGED OFFICER.
        Contact with the law may also occur when law enforcement officers search a place under the control of the alleged officer and seize goods, articles or things illegally possessed and found therein.
        
        WHEN LEOs MAY CONDUCT SEARCH & SEIZURE: INFO ON CONTRABAND or CRIMES IN A PARTICULAR PLACE
        When law enforcement authorities are in possession of information on the existence of contraband or criminal activities in a particular place, they may conduct a search and seizure by virtue of a search warrant duly issued.
        
        1 more item...
        
        DEFENSES THE ACCUSED MAY RAISE
        At the appropriate stage, the accused, by way of defense, may raise certain issues like the
        
        ARREST - Legality of the arrest
        
        SEARCH - Legality of the search
        
        ISSUANCE OF WARRANT - Validity of any warrant issued by the court, or the
        
        ENFORCEMENT OF WARRANT - Validity of the manner by which such warrants were enforced.
        
        1 more item...
        
        INSTANCES WHEN THERE IS CONTACT WITH THE LAW
        
        ARREST (Either with or without warrant)
        
        SEARCH (Either with or without warrant)
        
        WRITTEN COMPLAINT before barangay
        
        INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
        
        AFTER INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE LAW, COMPLAINT MAY BE FILED
        After offender's initial contact with the law, the aggrieved party or arresting officer may initiate the filing of a complaint directly with the trial court or with a proper officer for purposes of PI.
        
        NOT ALL CASES REQUIRE A
        PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
        Sometimes, a complaint or a criminal information may be filed directly in court without need for such investigation.
        
        INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION MAY EITHER BE BY DIRECT FILING OR FILING FOR PI
        Under current rules, either direct filing of a complaint or information in court, or the filing of a complaint with the investigating officer for the purpose of conducting a preliminary investigation, is an accepted mode of instituting a criminal action.
        
        INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION IS SIGNIFICANT FOR PRESCRIPTION
        Knowing when the criminal action is instituted is significant for the application of the rule on prescription of actions
        
        1 more item...
        
        HOW IS A CRIMINAL ACTION INSTITUTED
        It depends.
        
        IF PI IS REQUIRED, INSTITUTED BY COMPLAINT WITH PROPER OFFICER
        If the offense requires a PI, a criminal action is instituted by filing a complaint with the proper officer for purposes of preliminary investigation.
        
        WHEN PI IS REQUIRED: IF PENALTY IS AT LEAST 4 YRS, 2 MOS, AND 1 DAY
        Under the Rules, if the penalty prescribed by law for the offense is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, a preliminary investigation is required.
        
        3 more items...
        
        IF NO PI IS REQUIRED, INSTITUTED BY FILING COMPLAINT DIRECTLY WITH FIRST LEVEL COURT OR MTC
        For other offenses where no preliminary investigation is mandated by the Rules, the action is instituted by filing the complaint or information directly with the first level court (MTC) or by filing a complaint with the office of the prosecutor.
        
        IN MANILA & CHARTERED CITIES, COMPLAINT IS FILED W/ OFFICE OF PROSEC
        In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor, unless otherwise provided in their charters.
        
        COMPLAINT MAY BE FILED DIRECTLY WITH PROSEC FOR EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT
        If no preliminary investigation is required because the penalty is less than 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day, the complaint may be filed directly with the prosecutor, not for preliminary investigation but for evaluation of evidence of the complainant.
        
        1 more item...
        
        COMPLAINT/INFO MAY BE FILED DIRECTLY WITH THE MTC
        A complaint or information may also be filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court. Direct filing of a complaint or information with the proper official is also a well-recognized way of instituting a criminal action.
        
        1 more item...
        
        DUTY OF THE COURT UPON THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
        
        PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION:
        JUDGE PERSONALLY EVALUATES RESO AND EVIDENCE SUPPORTING RESO
        After preliminary investigation has been duly conducted and after the complaint or information has been filed in court, the judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and the evidence supporting said resolution.
        This evaluation is called a preliminary examination.
        
        PE IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION
        Preliminary examination is a judicial function separate and distinct from a preliminary investigation.
        
        PI vs PE
        Preliminary investigation is a function of the prosecutor and is conducted
        to determine probable cause to justify
        FILING a comp/info against the respondent.
        Preliminary examination is a judicial function conducted after the information is filed in court. When the information has been filed, the judge conducts the preliminary examination in order
        to determine probable cause to justify
        ISSUING a warrant of arrest.
        
        IF JUDGE DOUBTS EXISTNECE OF PC, HE MAY ORDER PROSEC TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
        In conducting the preliminary examination, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence if the judge doubts the existence of probable cause.
        
        IF JUDGE FINDS NO PC,
        HE SHALL DISMISS THE CASE
        After evaluating the evidence on record including the additional evidence submitted and the judge finds no probable cause, he shall dismiss the case.
        
        IF JUDGE FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE, HE SHALL ISSUE A WARRANT OF ARREST
        If the judge finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. If the accused has been previously arrested, the judge shall, instead of a warrant, issue a commitment order.
        
        COURT NOT REQUIRED TO CONDUCT WRITTEN PERSONAL EXAMINATION
        The court, in conducting a preliminary examination, is not required to conduct a written personal examination under oath of the complainant and his witnesses.
        
        AVAILMENT OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
        
        PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CIVIL ACTIONS MAY BE AVAILED OF IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS AS WELL
        When the complaint or information is filed and the civil action arising from the offense charged is properly instituted in accordance with the rules, the offended party may avail of the provisional remedies available in civil actions.
        
        EXAMPLE: ATTACHMENT
        For instance, the offended party may have the property of the accused attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused when circumstances arise justifying the attachment, as when the criminal action is based on a claim for money or property embezzled by the accused.
        
        1 more item...
        
        BAIL
        
        RECAP
        
        2 more items...
        
        ARRAIGNMENT
        
        2 more items...
  - - - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEFINED
        Criminal procedure is "a generic term to describe the network of laws and rules which governs the procedural administration of justice."
        
        CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS A MEANS BY WHICH LAWS ARE ENFORCED AND BY WHICH THE STATE PROSECUTES PERSONS WHO VIOLATE SUCH LAWS
        As such, Criminal Procedure treats of the rules and processes by which the criminal laws are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who violate such laws
        
        PROECURAL LAW
        Procedural law, as applied to criminal law, "provides or regulates the steps by which one who committed a crime is to be punished." (People v. Lacson)
        
        CRIMINAL LAW VS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
        
        CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAYS DOWN PROCESSES
        ...criminal procedure lays down the processes by which an offender is made to answer for the crime he committed.
        
        CRIMINAL LAW...
        
        DECLARES what conduct is criminal
        
        DEFINES crimes
        
        PRESCRIBES punishment for such crimes
        
        While criminal law declares what conduct is criminal, defines crimes and prescribes punishment for such crimes...
        
        CRIMINAL LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HOW THE OFFENDER IS TO BE MADE LIABLE FOR HIS CRIME
        Criminal law confines itself to the definition of offenses, the penalties applicable for such offenses, and the formulation of general principles for liability. However, it does not answer the question as to how the offender is to be made liable for his crime.
      - ULTIMATE GOAL OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
        
        ENFORCING CRIMINAL LAW INEVITABLY INTRUDES INTO THE
        PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUALS
        The enforcement of the criminal laws of the State inevitably leads to governmental intrusions into an individual's zones of privacy. How these intrusions can be reconciled with constitutional and statutory doctrines protecting individual rights is an inescapable theme tackled in criminal procedure.
        
        CRIMPRO MUST BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL
        In the prosecution for the violation of the penal laws, criminal procedure has the imposing task of balancing clashing societal interests primarily between those of the government and those of the individual.
        
        THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS HARMONY OF MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER AND PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
        Criminal procedure, therefore, has the ultimate goal of harmonizing the governmental functions of maintaining peace and order and protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.
        
        THE ADVERSARIAL OR ACCUSATORIAL SYSTEM
        
        ACCUSATORIAL/ADVERSARIAL, NOT INQUISITORIAL.
        The system of procedure in our jurisdiction is accusatorial or adversarial. It is not inquisitorial. It contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears them impartially and renders judgment only after trial.
        
        JUDGE CANNOT PURSUE HIS OWN INVESTIGATION AND ARRIVE AT HIS OWN CONCLUSION EX PARTE
        In our judicial set-up, a judge is not permitted to act as an inquisitor who pursues his own investigation and arrives at his own conclusion ex parte.
        (See Queto v. Catolico, 31 SCRA 52, 58)
        
        PROSECUTION VS DEFENSE;
        EACH SIDE MUST CONVINCE THE COURT OF THE CORRECT VERSION OF THE TRUTH
        The system has a two-sided structure consisting of the prosecution and the defense where each side tries to convince the court that its position is the correct version of the truth.
        
        ACCUSATION STARTS WITH COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
        In this system, the accusation starts with a formal indictment called, in our jurisdiction, as a complaint or information, the allegations in which must be proven by the government beyond reasonable doubt.
        
        1 more item...
        
        INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM
        In the inquisitorial system, the court plays a very active role and is not limited to the evidence presented before it.
        
        INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM COURT MAY CONSIDER EVIDENCE OUTSIDE IT
        The court may utilize evidence gathered outside the court and a judge or a group of judges under this system actively participates in the gathering of facts and evidence instead of passively receiving information or evidence from the parties.
        
        The judge steers the course of the proceedings by directing and supervising the gathering of the evidence and the questioning of the witnesses to the case. Thus, the counsels in the inquisitorial system have less active roles than they have in the adversarial system.
        
        So why do we abide by the accusatorial/adversarial system and not the inquisitorial one?
        Wouldn't judges be more inclined to be impartial than counsels considering they belong to neither side?
        
        LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES
        
        LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF RULES TO PROMOTE JUST, SPEEDY, AND INEXPENSIVE DISPOSITION OF ACTIONS
        The rules on criminal procedure, being parts of the Rules of Court, shall be "liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court)
        
        RULE OF FILING APPEAL TO SB, NOT CA, WAS RELAXED BECAUSE THE APPEAL INVOLVED A CRIMINAL CASE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A PERSON BEING DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY
        Illustrative of this rule is a case in which the petitioner's former counsel erroneously appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals instead of to the Sandiganbayan.
        The petitioner pleaded that the provisions of Sec. 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which mandate the dismissal of cases erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals, be relaxed and that the Court of Appeals be directed to forward the records of the case to the Sandiganbayan.
        The Supreme Court, in granting the petitioner's prayer, held that since the appeal involved a criminal case and the possibility of a person being deprived of liberty due to a procedural lapse is great, a relaxation of the rule was warranted.
        The Court emphasized the need to view rules of procedure as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, such that any rigid and strict application thereof, which results in technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice, must always be avoided.
        (Cariaga v. People, 626 SCRA 231, 236)
        
        DUE PROCESS; MANDATORY
        
        DUE PROCESS; MANDATORY
        Due process in criminal proceedings is mandatory and indispensable and cannot be met without a "law which hears before it condemns and proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
        
        REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
        Alonte v. Savellano Jr. enumerates the
        requirements of due process in a criminal proceeding, to wit:
        (a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;
        (b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused;
        (c) that the accused is given opportunity to be heard; and
        (d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.
    - - B. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
        
        C. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
        
        D. INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
        
        GENERALLY, COURT WILL NOT ISSUE WRIT OF PROHIB/INJUNCTION (PRELIM OR FINAL) TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
        As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal prosecution.
        With more reason will injunction not lie when the case is still at the stage of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. However, in extreme cases, the Court laid the following exceptions:
        
        EXCEPTIONS
        
        PROTECT CONSTI RIGHTS OF ACCUSED - when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
        
        ORDERLY ADMIN OF JUSTICE, AVOID OPPRESSION, OR MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS - when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
        
        PREJUDICIAL QUESTION IS SUBJUDICE - when there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice;
        
        OFFICER'S LACK OR EXCESS OF AUTHORITY - when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
        
        PROSECUTION IS UNDER INVALID LAW, ORDINANCE, OR REGULATION - where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
        
        DOUBLE JEOPARDY - when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
        
        NO JURISDICTION - where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
        
        PERSECUTION NOT PROSECUTION - where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
        
        FALSE, MOTIVATED BY VENGEANCE - where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
        
        CLEARLY NO PRIMA FACIE CASE + MOTION TO QUASH WAS DENIED - when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied
        
        (Camanag v. Guerrero, 335 Phil. 945, 970-971 [1997], citing Paderanga v. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86 [1991]; Brocka v. Enrile, supra, Note 14, at pp. 188-189; Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 [1987]; Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 594, 598 [1995] cited in Samson v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 123504, December 14, 2000).
        
        E. MANDAMUS TO COMPEL PROSECUTION (Bar 1999)
        
        MANDAMUS = TO ENJOIN A DUTY UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTED
        
        Mandamus is a remedial measure for parties aggrieved which shall be issued when "any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station."
        
        MANDAMUS CANNOT CONTROL DISCRETION
        The writ of mandamus is not available to control discretion.
        
        1 more item...
        
        PROSECUTOR'S GAD DEFINED
        
        "Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation.
        
        By way of exception, however, judicial review is allowed where respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, that is,
        when he has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner
        by reason of passion or personal hostility,
        patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal
        to perform a duty enjoined by law"
        (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Rogelio Reynaldo and Jose C. Adrandea, G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010).
        
        HOW JOTP IS ACQUIRED: ARREST, APPEARANCE, SUBMISSION, ETC.
        
        Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his
        
        arrest or apprehension,
        with or without a warrant, or
        his voluntary appearance or
        submission to the jurisdiction of the court
        (Valdepenas v. People, 16 SCRA 871; Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4).
        
        GENERALLY SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF = SUBMISSION
        As a general rule, seeking affirmative relief is deemed to be a submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
        (Sapugay v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 464)
        
        HOW VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION MAY BE EFFECTED:
        
        FILING MOTION TO QUASH,
        
        APPEARING FOR ARRAIGNMENT,
        
        PARTICIPATING IN TRIAL, OR
        
        BY GIVING BAIL
        The voluntary submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court may be effected by filing a motion to quash, appearing for arraignment, participating in the trial or by giving bail
        
        (Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633; Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377).
        
        JOTP ACQUIRED IF BAIL IS POSTED, EVEN IF WOA IS VOID
        
        The assertion that the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused because the warrant of arrest issued is null and void because no probable cause was found by the court issuing it, cannot be sustained because he posted a bail.
        
        The giving or posting of a bail by the accused is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
        Even if it is conceded that the warrant issued was void, the defendant waived all his rights to object by appearing and giving a bond.
        (Cojuangco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367; Velasco v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677)
        
        JOTP ACQUIRED UPON PLEA
        By submitting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court as shown by entering into a counsel-assisted plea, the active participation in the trial and presenting evidence for the defense, the accused is deemed to have waived his constitutional protection against illegal arrest
        (People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 177741, August 27, 2009).
        
        JOTP NOT ACQUIRED UPON SPECIAL APPEARANCE
        
        However, not all acts seeking affirmative relief would constitute a voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
        
        Making a special appearance in court to question the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused is not a voluntary appearance as when in a criminal case a motion to quash is filed precisely on that ground.
        There is likewise no submission to the jurisdiction of the court when the accused files a motion to quash the warrant of arrest because it is the very legality of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
        (Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006)
        
        CUSTODY OVER THE ACCUSED IS NOT JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
        
        Being in the custody of the law is not necessarily being under the jurisdiction of the court.
        
        1 more item...
        
        JURISDICTION OVER THE
        SUBJECT MATTER
        
        JURISDICTION IS A QUESTION OF LAW; JD MEANS POWER & AUTH TO HEAR & DETERMINE ISSUES OF FACTS AND LAW
        Generally, jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a cause — it is a question of law (Gomez v. Montalban, 548 SCRA 693).
        The term imports the power and authority to hear and determine issues of facts and of law, the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law and to pronounce the judgment (21 C.J.S., Courts, § 2, 1990).
        
        JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER DEFINED
        Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belongs
        (Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil 484).
        It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and means not simply jurisdiction over the particular case then occupying the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs (21 C.J.S., Courts, § 10, 1990).
        
        CRIMINAL JURISDICTION DEFINED
        Specifically, criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it (Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551).
        
        HOW JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS CONFERRED
        
        HOW JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS DETERMINED
        
        STATUTE APPLICABLE TO A CRIMINAL ACTION
        
        USE OF THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY
        
        2 more items...
        
        JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED BY LAW IN FORCE AT TIME OF INSTITUTION OF ACTION, NOT ARRAIGNMENT
        
        It is a hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action and not during the arraignment of the accused (Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296, September 28, 2007).
        
        1 more item...
        
        JURISDICTION IS
        CONFERRED BY LAW
        DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS IN COMP/INFO*
        
        While jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law, jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
        
        Hence, "(I)n order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint or information must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for by law for such acts fall within the jurisdiction of the court in which the criminal action is filed.
        If the facts set out in the complaint or information are sufficient to show that the court has jurisdiction, then that court indeed has jurisdiction" (Mobilia Products v. Umezawa, G.R. No. 149357, March 4, 2005).
        
        IT IS THE AVERMENTS IN THE INFO THAT CHARACTERIZES THE CRIME TO BE PROSECUTED
        
        The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information and once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case (Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009).
        
        It is the averments in the information which characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried (Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 51).
        
        1 more item...
        
        JOSM IS CONFERRED BY LAW,
        NOT THE RULES;
        EXPRESSLY CONFERRED BY CONSTI & STATUTES
        
        Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law (Durisol Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121106, February 20, 2002).
        
        It is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules (Padunan v. DARAB, G.R. No. 132163, January 28, 2003).
        Philippine courts are without common law jurisdiction or power but only those expressly conferred by the Constitution and statutes (Soller v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 144261-62, May 9, 2001).
        
        CONFERMENT MUST BE CLEAR AND CANNOT BE PRESUMED
        When the law confers jurisdiction, that conferment must be clear. It cannot be presumed. It must clearly appear from the statute or will not be held to exist (De Jesus v. Garcia, 19 SCRA 554).
        
        "Clear" is a general word that might include "necessarily implied" so I'm concerned. Is it only what is explicitly or expressly stated or does it also include necessarily implied?
        
        NOT BE FIXED BY WILL OF THE PARTIES
        
        Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of the parties.
        
        In determining whether or not a case lies within or outside the jurisdiction of a court, reference to the applicable statute on the matter is indispensable
        (Tolentino v. Social Security Commission, 138 SCRA 428; Municipality of Sogod v. Sandiganbayan, 312 SCRA 77; De la Cruz v. Moya, 160 SCRA 838)
        
        1 more item...
      - REQUISITES
        A reading of jurisprudence and treatises on the matter discloses the following basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases:
        
        JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
        -
        
        JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
        -
        
        JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
        
        JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER vs JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
        
        JOSM vs JOTP
        Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case.
        One case, Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551, mandates that the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of.
        
        JOTP REQUIRES MUST HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO FORUM FOR TRIAL
        Jurisdiction over the person of the accused refers to the authority of the court, not over the subject matter of the criminal litigation, but 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
        (Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 72; Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367; Velasco v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677).
        
        JOTP vs Custody?
        
        JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY;
        VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES
        
        TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION = GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF THE TERRITORY OVER WHICH THE COURT PRESIDES
        This element requires that the offense must have been committed within the court's territorial jurisdiction or within the geographical limits of the territory over which the court presides.
        (Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; U.S. v. Gallegos, 37 Phil. 289).
        
        DETERMINED BY FACTS ALLEGED IN COMPLAINT, AS REGARDS PLACE WHERE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED
        This fact is to be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or information as regards the place where the offense charged was committed.
        (Fullero v. People, 533 SCRA 97).
        
        What if during trial, they discover as a fact that the crime was committed somewhere else?
        
        ACTION MUST BE INSTITUTED IN TERRITORY WHERE CRIME OR ANY ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT THEREOF TOOK PLACE
        In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was committed or where anyone of the essential ingredients took place.
        Hence, if any one of these elements is proven to have occurred, let us say, in Pasay City, the proper court in that city has jurisdiction.
        (Barrameda v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 477; Abalos v. People, G.R. No. 136994, September 17, 2002).
        
        RATIO: TO PREVENT GREAT INCONVENIENCE TO DEFENDANT
        The rule that criminal action be instituted and tried in the court of the territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred is a fundamental principle, the purpose of which is not to compel the defendant to move to, and appear in, a different court from that of the province where the crime was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other evidence in another place.
        Campanano, Jr. v. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471, October 17, 2007; Bonifacio, et al. v. Regional Trial Court ofMakati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010
        
        LACK OF JOT = DISMISSAL
        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 show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
        (Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255; Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764, October 9, 2009).
        
        UNLIKE IN CIVIL CASES, VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL IN CRIMINAL CASES
        The concept of venue in actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional — for jurisdiction to be acquired 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 (Isip v. People, 525 SCRA 725).
        Thus, the RTC of Manila has no authority to issue a search warrant for offenses committed in Cavite (Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Supergreen, Inc., 518 SCRA 750).
        
        WHEN A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENSES NOT COMMITTED WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
        The rule that the offense must be prosecuted in the place where the same was committed admits of certain exceptions.
        
        OFFENSE COMMITTED UNDER ART. 2 = COGNIZABLE BEFORE ANY PH COURT
        
        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.
        
        COGNIZABLE BY COURT WHERE CRIM ACTION FIRST FILED
        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).
        
        ARTICLE 2 OF THE RPC
        Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those 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 in the presiding number;
        -
        
        While being public officers or 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, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
        
        2 more items...
        
        CHANGE OF VENUE TO AVOID MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
        
        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[4], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines).
        
        COMMITTED IN A VEHICLE = ANY TERRITORY PASSED BY DURING TRIP, INCLUDING PLACE OF DEPARTURE AND OF ARRIVAL
        
        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).
        
        COMMITTED ON BOARD A VESSEL = ANY TERRITORY PASSED BY DURING VOYAGE OR COURT OF FIRST PORT OF ENTRY
        
        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).
        
        COGNIZABLE BY SANDIGANBAYAN, DEPENDS UPON NATURE OF OFFENSE AND POSITION OF ACCUSED
        
        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.
        
        COGNIZABLE BY SANDIGANBAYAN, GREATER CONVENIENCE OF THE ACCUSED AND OF WITNESSES AND OTHER COMPELLING CONSIDERATIONS
        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.
        INTEREST OF JUSTICE PERMITS CONDUCTING SESSION
        OUTSIDE OF PH
        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.
        
        WRITTEN DEFAMATION = COURT WHERE PUBLIC OFFICER HELD OFFICE OR WHERE PRIVATE INDIV RESIDES AT TIME OF OFFENSE
        
        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 resides at the time of the commission of the offense in case the offended party is a private individual.
        (Article 360, Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 1289 and Republic Act No. 4363; Bar 1995J.
        
        SPECIFIC RULES ON WRITTEN DEFAMATION
        
        The case of Agbayani v. Sayo, 89 SCRA 699, restated Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code (written defamation) as follows:
        
        2 more items...
    - - A. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF MTC, MCTC, AND MTC
        Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan, the MT C shall exercise the following criminal jurisdiction:
        
        B. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
        OF RTC
        
        C. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
        
        JURISDICTION
        
        JURISDICTION OF SB SET BY PD 1606, NOT BY RA 3019
        
        The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D . 1606 as amended and not by R.A . 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice s Act as amended
        
        (Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008).
        
        APPLICABLE LAW: PD 1606
        
        The applicable law:
        
        "Section 4. Jurisdiction PD 1606
        https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1978/pd_1606_1978.html
        
        1 more item...
        
        OFFENSES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE SB
        
        OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WITH A SALARY GRADE OF "27" OR HIGHER
        
        2 more items...
        
        JURISDICTION OF SB IS NOT CONFINED TO VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
        
        The phraseology of the governing law discloses that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is not confined to violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Specifically, the following offenses are subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:
        
        ALSO INCLUDES
        
        1 more item...
        
        (D.) SUMMARY PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES
        
        FIRST LEVEL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CASES FALLING UNDER SUMMARY PROCEDURE
        
        The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases falling under summary procedure committed within their jurisdiction (Sec. 1, The 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure).
        
        CASES CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO SUMMARY PROCEDURE
        
        The following cases are subject to summary procedure:
        
        VIOLATIONS OF...
        TRAFFIC LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
        (a) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
        RENTAL LAW
        (b) Violations of the rental law;
        MUNICIPAL/CITY ORDINANCES
        (c) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
        IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 6 MONTHS OR FINE NOT EXCEEDING ONE 1,000
        (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 one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom.
        DAMAGE TO PROPERTY THROUGH CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, FINE NOT EXCEEDING 10,000
        (e) Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) (Sec. 1[B], The 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure).
        
        1 more item...
        
        E. PROHIBITED PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND PETITIONS IN SUMMARY PROCEDURE
        
        MOTION TO QUASH - Motion to quash the complaint or information except if the ground is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with the barangay conciliation proceedings;
        -
        
        MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS - Motion for bill of particulars;
        -
        
        MFNT/MR/M4RO - Motion for new trial, or of consideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
        -
        
        PETITION FOR RELIEF - Petition for relief from judgment;
        -
        
        MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PAPER - Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
        -
        
        MEMORANDA - Memoranda;
        -
        
        CERTIORARI/ MANDAMUS/ PROHIBITION AGAINST ANY INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court; (Bar 2004)
        -
        
        DILATORY MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT - Dilatory motions for postponement;
        -
        
        REPLY - Reply;
        -
        
        THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINTS - Third-party complaints;
        -
        
        INTERVENTIONS - Interventions
        
        1 more item...
        
        EO OVER ALL CRIM CASES NOT WITHIN EXCLUSIVE JD OF ANY COURT, TRIBUNAL, OR BODY EXCEPT THOSE IN EXCLUSIVE & CONCURRENT JD OF SB
        
        Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (B.P. 129 [Sec. 20]);
        
        EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JD OVER CASES DECIDED BY MTC
        
        Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction (B.P. 129 [Sec. 22]);
        
        SPECIAL JURISDICTION TO HANDLE EXCLUSIVELY CRIM CASES AS DESIGNATED BY SC
        
        Special jurisdiction to handle exclusively criminal cases as designated by the Supreme Court (B.P. 129 [Sec. 23]);
        
        JD OVER CRIM CASES UNDER SPECIFIC LAWS SUCH AS:
        
        Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific laws such as:
        
        2 more items...
        
        EO JURISDICTION OVER ALL VIOLATIONS OF CITY/MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES IN THEIR TERRITORIAL JD
        
        Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction (Batas Pambansa Big. 129, Section 32[1J; Republic Act No. 7691);
        
        EO JURISDICTION OVER ALL OFFENSES PUNISHABLE WIH IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 6 YEARS, IRRESPECTIVE OF FINE AND OTHER IMPOSABLE/ ACCESSORY PENALTIES
        
        Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable or accessory penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount
        
        (B.P. 129, Sec. 32[2J; R.A. 7691);
        
        DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE OFFENSE IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE ONLY
        This rule disregarding the amount of the fine and other accessory penalties in determining jurisdiction applies where the offense is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both but not when the offense is punishable by fine only.
        
        IF RTC OR SB HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE EVEN IF NOT EXCEEDING 6 YEARS
        Note that the jurisdiction of the MTC is qualified by the phrase "Except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan."
        This indicates that the MT C does not at all times have jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years if jurisdiction is vested by law either in the RTC or Sandiganbayan.
        
        LIBEL CASES ARE IN RTC'S EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
        Based on Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the MTC has jurisdiction over offenses punishable by up to the maximum of prision correctional which shall not exceed six (6) years.
        There are however, offenses which even if punishable by the maximum of prision correctional are not cognizable by the MTC because of an express provision of law like libel as denned in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
        Under this provision, libel by means of writings or similar means shall be punishable by prision correctional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from P200 to P600,000 pesos. Nevertheless, under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the criminal action as well as the civil action for such offense shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the CFI (now RTC).
        
        1 more item...
        
        IF THE ONLY PENALTY PROVIDED IS A FINE, THE AMOUNT SHALL DETERMINE JD; MTC HAS EO OVER OFFENSES WITH < P4,000
        
        Where the only penalty provided for by law is a fine, the amount thereof shall determine the jurisdiction of the court under the original provisions of B.P. 129 (Sec. 32[2]) which provided that the MT C shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with a fine of not more than Four Thousand (P4,000.00) Pesos;
        
        EO OVER DAMAGE TO PROPERTY THROUGH CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
        
        Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence (B.P. 129, Sec. 33[2]; R.A. 7691);
        
        VIOLATIONS OF BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
        
        Violations of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law ) (A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC, March 25, 2003);
        
        1 more item...