June 24, 2016

JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF CRIMINAL CASES

JURISDICTION
A very basic fundamental issue in every procedure whether civil or criminal.
As a matter of fact, if you notice in cases you read, issue on jurisdiction becomes one of the grounds for quashal of
information or a dismissal of a complaint in a civil action.
Jurisdiction defined
It comes from 2 Latin terms juris and vincere. The former means right while the latter means to speak. So it is
translated as to talk or to speak with right. In other words, speaking with authority or based with authority.
Thus, jurisdiction simply means authority or power.
A discussion on jurisdiction is actually a discussion of the definition, the nature and the vesting of such jurisdiction.
Hence, it is therefore governed by substantive law. The distinction between substantive law and procedural law is that
the former is a branch of law where authority, power and rights are defined and vested while the latter deals on how
are these rights are imposed and the method used in imposing the same. Thus, jurisdiction falls squarely under
substantive law. It means that it is substantive law that defines and vests jurisdiction because jurisdiction means
authority.
In relation to judicial function, what is the nature of that authority?
It is the nature to try, hear and decide cases.
In relation to criminal actions, how do we define jurisdiction?
Essentially, you look at the nature of judicial function. The courts have the power to try, hear and decide cases and if
conviction results, to apply the appropriate penalty.
VENUE
Now, related to the concept of jurisdiction is the concept of venue. In civil actions, venue means place. When you
relate venue to a case, it means a place where the case is to be filed. Were not talking about the courts; were talking about the
territorial limits where the case may be filed and tried.
Ex.
You file a civil case for the collection of sum of money, where do you file it? According to the rules, you can file
it in the place where you are residing or where the defending party is residing. You have a choice with regards to the
place of trial. That is what we mean by venue.
In relation to a criminal case, venue does not simply refer to a place of trial. It is part of the definition of the authority
of the court. In other words, it is an essential part of jurisdiction. Thus, in relation to a criminal action, only the court which has
authority to try cases within a particular case has the authority to try an offense committed in that place.
So there is a clear distinction of the definition of venue between the civil and criminal cases. In relation to civil cases,
venue simply means a place of trial. Thus, it is only part of a procedure; it has nothing to do with jurisdiction and the authority of
the court. It is merely part of the method of imposing a right. However, in criminal case, venue defines the authority and
jurisdiction of the court to try and hear the case.
Classification of venue
One way is classifying it based on what cases can a court hear, try and decide.
i. General and Special
If the court can adjudicate all types of cases, except those expressly excluded, then such is a general authority.
But if a court has authority only over special kinds of cases, that jurisdiction is called limited or special jurisdiction.
Ex.
1. Certain court is tasked or assigned to cases involving family relations.
2. There are courts specifically assigned to try drug cases.

ii. Original and Appellate

Another is original jurisdiction. It means that a case is vested upon a court at the first instance or at the time the case is
initiated.
The opposite of this is appellate jurisdiction. Essentially, it refers to the jurisdiction of a court to review the decision of
an inferior court.
iii. Exclusive and Concurrent
Exclusive means that the jurisdiction is vested in one level of courts to the exclusion of others.
Concurrent means that several levels have the same jurisdiction over one and the same case.
Note: All these classes of jurisdiction or most of them can be combined in one court.
Ex.
1. Sandiganbayan is a special court; thus, it is not a general court. But it can also exercise original jurisdiction
and such exercise is exclusive in the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has appellate jurisdiction.
2. The same goes to Court of Tax Appeals.
Four levels in the hierarchy of our courts.
1st level: Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Metropolitan Trial Courts (MetC), and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts.
Whats the difference among these 1st level courts?
MetC are courts found in Metro Manila. In other cities (like Cebu City), they are called MTCC. The first level courts
found in Municipalities are called MTC. However, there are first level courts situated in one municipality but actually
covers cases not only committed in that municipality but also in an adjoining municipality. This is known as the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. The name used commonly to address them is MTC.
2nd level: Regional Trial Courts
o Here, the scope of jurisdiction is bigger. However, it does not necessarily mean that it covers everything in that
region.
Ex.
Cebu City, Bohol, Cebu Province, Sequijor, Negros Oriental constitute the 7th judicial region. RTCs in
Cebu City does not cover all cases within this region. But the point here is that the area covered is much
bigger.
3rd level: Appellate Courts
o There are 3 different stations of the Court of Appeals
Luzon Station situated in Manila
Visayas Station situated in Cebu
Mindanao Station situated in Cagayan de Oro
4th level: Supreme Court
o Of course, it covers the entire Philippines.
Related to jurisdiction is the hierarchy of courts.
It means that the hierarchy of courts must be respected in order for each court to perform its duty effectively.
What if the 2nd, 3rd and 4th level courts have jurisdiction over a certain case, how does hierarchy of courts apply?
o You must respect the hierarchy of courts. It means that you cannot go up immediately. Exhaust first all the
remedies available in the lowest level before proceeding to the highest one. This must be so in order to have
an efficient and competent performance of the duties of every court.
The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal where
there are questions that demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the specialized knowledge
and expertise of said administrative agency.

This applies to a case which involves a specialized issue where an administrative agency, which belongs to the Executive
department, has the authority at the same time with the courts.
Ex.
When two vessels collide somewhere in the Mactan Bridge, the issue can be determined by the MARINA which
is an Administrative agency but the same can also be resolved by our courts. But we have to accept the fact that
MARINA is the specialized agency better equipped to determine this kind of issue because it has the expertise on
resolving the same. Applying the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, the courts should refrain from exercising its
jurisdiction over that issue in lieu of the Administrative agency.

Concurrent jurisdiction may also arise among different branches of the same court.
Ex.
RTC Cebu City, a multiple sala court It is one RTC but composed of several branches. When you file a case to
RTC Cebu City, it will be assigned to a particular branch. Before it is assigned, the jurisdiction of all these different
branches is concurrent. But the moment it is assigned to one, then it will exclude all the others.
Another situation where there can be concurrence is when courts exercise jurisdiction over the same territory. Courts of equal
rank within that territorial jurisdiction can have concurrent jurisdiction over a particular case. Of course, when the case is
assigned to a particular court, then it will exclude all the others.
Ex.
A continuing crime of kidnapping A child was kidnapped in Mandaue City, brought to Lapu-Lapu City, and
transferred to Dumaguete City. Now, which court has the jurisdiction over this case? Since this is a continuing crime,
the courts in Mandaue City, Lapu-Lapu City and Dumaguete City may have jurisdiction to try the case. Thus, there will
be a concurrent jurisdiction between courts of equal rank resulting from the nature of the crime.
Requisites of Criminal Cases
3 essential elements constituting Courts authority over criminal cases:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
The authority over the general classification of cases to which that case filed belongs. In other words, the authority
to try, hear and decide based on the nature of the case.
How do we determine that nature?
o By basing it on the penalty imposable.
Note: Penalty imposable based on the provision of the law, not penalty imposed after hearing. Penalty
imposable may be different from the penalty actually imposed after hearing because there may be
circumstances that may affect such imposition like a mitigating circumstance which may lower the penalty.
How do we determine the imposable penalty?
o It can be determined by the nature of the crime.
How do you determine the nature of the crime being charged?
o It would depend on the information or the complaint. Take a look at the complaint, the above portion
constitutes the title (People vs Dela Cruz) and the crime alleged (rape). Below that is the narration of the
facts. In case there is a conflict between the crime alleged in the title (rape) and the narration of the facts
(acts of lasciviousness), which should be preferred to be determinative of the nature of the offense? Of
course, it is the body of the complaint where the facts are narrated.
o In some cases, it is not only the nature of the crime that determines the penalty imposable, but also the
nature of the person whether that person is a private individual or a public official.
How is that jurisdiction defined? When or how is that jurisdiction vested?
o As explained earlier, it is vested by law. It cannot be vested by rules of procedure.
Speaking about crimes, which law is applied: is it the law upon the commission of the crime or the law applicable at
the time of the institution of the criminal case?
o The answer is at the time of the institution of the criminal case.
2.

Territorial jurisdiction
The authority to try, hear and decide a case is also determined in the place where the crime is committed.
This is also a very important element of jurisdiction.
Ex.

3.

If a crime is committed in Cebu City, the same cannot be tried in Bohol even if there is also an RTC in
Bohol.
Criminal case should be instituted where it took place or where any of its essential ingredients took place.
Ex.
The crime of BP 22. Its essential ingredients are the issuance and the bouncing which can happen in
two different places. For instance, the check was issued in Cebu City, deposited and bounced in Mandaue City.
Now, which court has jurisdiction? Applying the rule, the case can be filed either in Cebu or Mandaue City.
Being concurrent, once filed in one court, it excludes the other.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

The court must acquire authority to bind the person of the accused. Thus, the court should not only have
jurisdiction over the nature of the crime or the place where it is committed.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused?
o By arresting the accused. Having arrested, the accused is now compelled to answer the accusation
against him.
o When the accused himself submit to the jurisdiction of the court.

Note: All of these 3 elements must concur. Absent one, whatever the court does shall be null and void because of lack of
authority.