eI | Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbay . Jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman . . Powers of the Department of Justice .... "Role of the Office of the Solicitor General in SNAIRYN CONTENTS PARTI COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter ..... Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Accused Venue and Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Case: Venue is Jurisdictional .. Adherence of Jurisdiction . Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court .. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts Special Law vis-a-vis Special Law .. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Lupong Tagapamayapa Summary Procedure Hold Departure Order Criminal Cases ....... PART II RULE 110 - PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES Institution of Criminal Actions by Complaint or Informatio General Rule Prescription Oath Offended Party Any Peace Officer Subscribed and Filed by the Prosecutor Information Certified Under Oath by the Prosecutor Role of Public Prosecutors in Criminal Actions ..... Scanned with CamScenner BRRASRASBeenogaene Ppe Absence of the Public Prosecutor .. Written Authorization for the Private Prosecutor Private Offenses Child in Conflict with the Law .. Prosecution of Special Laws . Sufficient Complaint or Information Designation of an Offense Acts or Omissions Constituting the Offens ying and Aggravating Cir of the Accusation . Date of Commission Offended Party... Offenses Against Property One Information, One Offense .. Amendment Downgrading, Exclusion Substitution Effect of Amendment, Substitution, Downgrading, or Exclusion on Preliminary Investigation .... Exceptions to Territoriality ..... Private Offended Party’s Personality in Criminal Actions .. Subject to the Public Prosecutor's Direction and Control Intervention in Criminal and Civil Actions RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Institution of the Civil Action with the Criminal Action. Filing Fees in Criminal Cases ... Prohibited Pleadings in Criminal Cases Primacy of the Criminal Action Acquittal .... No Double Jeopardy When Acquittal is Void . Independent Civil Actions Death of the Accused ae an Substitution by Reason of Death in Criminal and Civil C. Prejudicial Question ... RULE 112 - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Preliminary Investigation ., Absence or Irregularity of Preliminary Investigation Probable Cause .... Scanned with CamScenner 101 m1 117 us ng 120 121 122 1235 127 128 135 138 139ae Noge ene = National Prosecution Service Officers .. 142 Other Officers Authorized by Law .. 142 Judges are Not Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigation 143 Effect of Preliminary Investigation Conducted Without Authority .. 144 Overview of the Procedure . 146 Investigating Prosecutor's Recommendation 151 Action on Recommendation of Reviewing Officer . 151 Prohibited Motions for Reinvestigation Under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial 152 Remedy Against an Adverse Finding .. 152 For Cases Requiring Preliminary Investigation 154 Judicial Determination of Probable Cause . 156 Personal Examination bein Probable Cause Hearing Sad Dismissal of Case for Failure to Establish Probable Cause 160 Order to Present Additional Evidence 160 When Warrant of Arrest Not Necessary .. 161 Purpose of Inquest . 161 Inquest Proceedings .. 162 Remedies After Inquest 165 Absence or Unavailability of Inquest Prosecutor 167 Preliminary Investigation Records Forwarded to the Court ...... 168 Record of Preliminary Investigation Generally Not Part of the Record of the Case ... 169 Cases Not Requiring Preliminary Investigation but Filed with the Prosecutor .. 169 Cases Not Requiring Preliminary Investigation and Not Covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure .... Cases Covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure RULE 113 - ARREST Definition of Arrest 172 Actual Restraint or Submission to the Custody 173 No Violence or Unnecessary Force 1723 Miranda Rights .... 174 Recording of Police Investigation . 176 177 Massiah Rule Distinction Between Custodial Investigation and Preliminary Investigation .. Duty of Arresting Officer xv Scanned with CamScenner1. 12, 13. 14. Se eneueepe wy 13. 14. 15. BSRSR 8 BSBSRESBB! Enforcement of Warrant of Arrest Warrantless Arrests in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure... 181 Probable Cause Based on Personal Knowledge of Facts or Circumstances sve 187 Other Instances of Warrantless Arrests in the Rules 193. Procedure for Serving Warrant of Arrest ... 194 Arrest by a Bantay Bayan or Barangay ‘Tanod 197 RULE 114 - BAIL Purpose of Bail .... 202 Bail in Extradition Proceedings . 203 Constitutional Right to Bail 204 Conditions of Bail 205 Effectivity of Bail 206 Appearance Whenever Required 206 Trial in Absentia . 206 Duty of the Bondsman . 207 Amount of Bail 207 Three Kinds of Bail: and Bail for Non-Bailable Offenses Bail as a Matter of Right ... Bail as a Matter of Discretion Capital Offense... Non-Bailable Offense Grant of Bail for an Accused Charged with a Non-Bailable Offense on the Ground of Special, Humanitarian, and Compelling Circumstances .. 216 Examples of Non-Bailable Offenses 27 Bail Hearing . 218 Evidence in Petition for Bail . 220 Recall of Witnesses ...,. 220 Remedy for Denial of Bail 21 Factors in Setting Reasonable Amount of Bail 222 Excessive Bail 225 Recognizance |) in Custody fa pe Maximum Period of Imp . 236 In Custody for the Minimum Peri e nae oy f Hee riod of Imprisonment 5 ae Notice to the Prosecutor and Recommendation Required .. 239 Forfeiture of the Bail and Judgment on the Bond .. 241 Arrest of an Accused on Baill sss 243 xvi Scanned with CamScenner30. 32. 33. v SYPNANeY Pepepere REREaRPR SY SNA ARY NP p Hold Departure Orde! Precautionary Hold Departure Order. Motion to Travel Right to Bail After Conviction . RULE 115 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSED Right to Be Presumed Innocent Right to Be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusatior Right to Be Present and to Be Heard in His Defense Presence During Trial . Right against Compulsion to Testify as. a Witness « Right to Testify in His Own Behalf Right to Confront and Cross-Examine Right to Compulsory Process .. Right to Speedy, Impartial, and Public Trial Right to Appeal ... RULE 116 — ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA Arraignment. Plea.., Arraignment Schedul Prohibited Motions Plea Bargaining ... Plea of Guilt to a Capital Offense Plea of Guilt to a Non-Capital Offense .. Sentencing Hearing. Improvident Plea Improvident Plea in Capital Offenses Voluntariness of Plea ..... Remedies to Challenge Guilty Plea Unjustified Refusal to Produce: Present Insanity Prejudicial Questiot Petition for Review, Archiving of Cases RULE 117 - MOTION TO QUASH Motion to Quash ... ‘ Motion to Quash and Motion to Dismiss xvii Scanned with CamScenner 243 244 245 245 253, 256 261 262 264 265 268 269 277 280 286 287 288 292 297 298 298 299 300 306 307 309 310 sil 313 313,ypengaurkepe FeNr Formal Requirements Substantial Compliance «... ; 28 Grounds Alleged in the Motion to Quash 5 Facts Charged Do Not Constitute an Offens - 6 Lack of Jurisdiction over the Offense Charged Fi 20 Lack of Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused... 322 Lack of Authority of the Officer Who Filed the Information 323, Defective Information 324 Prescription 328 Legal Excuse or Justification. 333 Double Jeopardy 335 Court Action on Motion to Quash. 339 Defects Curable by Amendme: 340 Order to File Another Information 341 Effect on Custody of Accuses 342 Denial of a Motion to Quash. 342 Double Jeopardy... 344 |. Not Double Jeopardy 346 Provisional Dismissal; Requisite: 348 Revival of a Case Following Provisional Dismissal 350 . Provisional Dismissal under A.M. No. 12-11-2-Si 352 . Comparison: Motion to Quash and Provisional Dismissal 353 RULE 118 - PRE-TRIAL 358 361 Discovery .. 363 Motion to Suppres: 363 Judicial Dispute Resolution 364 Compromise of the Civil Aspect 366 Affidavit of Desistance 367 Offer of Compromise 368 Purpose of the Pre-Trial Order 368 RULE 119 - TRIAL, When Accused Brought to ‘Trial Continuous Trial Priority of Trial Supreme Court Guidelines Ensurin, Disposition of the Maguindanao Mi 1g the Speedy lultiple Murder Trial jee 373 xvlli Scanned with CamScenner2esSEs Exclusions from Time Limit 376 Time Limit for New Trial 384 Speedy Trial Relative 384 Computation of ‘Time 386 386 389 Speedy Disposition 390 Effect of Dismissal on Ground of Speedy Dispositio 394 Cagang Guideline: 395 Order of Trial, Modification of Order 397 Presentation of Testimonial Evidence 397 Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, 398 Conditional Examination of Defense Witnesses. 400 Conditional Examination of Prosecution Witnesses . 401 Distinguished from Rule 23 on Depositions. 403 Joint Trial of Accused 403 Discharge as a State Witness. 405 Effect of Discharge. 409 Effect of Improper Discharg; 409 Discharge under the Witness Protection Program 409 Substitution 410 Disqualification/Inhibitio ant Exclusion of the Public... an Exclusion of the Accused and Witnesses .. 412 . Joint Trial of Cases.. 413 Consolidation for Trial 13 Joint Trial of Multiple Counts Procedure for Consolidation 414 415 Demurrer to Evidence ... 416 Demurrer Without Leave of Court 417 Demurrer with Leave of Court ... 418 The Form of the Leave and the Demurrer to Evidence ... 420 Remedy .. eeeeerteate 420 RULE 120 - JUDGMENT Decision/Judgment .. 424 Fundamental Requirements 424 Lack of Stenographic Notes 426 Judgment of Conviction .. = Judgment of Acquittal .. xix Scanned with CamScenner2 Serna 1. 12. 13; 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Nogpeye Kinds of Acquittal Illegal Sentence Compensation foi Variance Between Alle; Promulgation of Judgment Bail Pending Appeal ... Promulgation in Absentia Schedule of Promulgation Surrender and Explanation Modification ..... Issuance of Entry of Judgment Execution and Immutability of Final Judgments Exceptions to Rule on Immutability of Final Judgments + Detention of Accused if Acquitted gation and Proof RULE 121 - NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION Filing for New Trial or Reconsideration Motion for New Trial Recantation as a Basis for New Trial . Motion for Reconsideration .. Form of Motion .... Conformity of Public Prosecutor . Effect of Grant of New Trial or Reconsideration RULE 122 - APPEAL Appeal .. Who May Appeal Petition for Certiora: Rules on Appeal ... Appeals from First Level Courts Appeals from Regional Trial Courts Appeals from the Court of Appeals. E-Filing in the Supreme Court Summary of the Appellate Process - Reglementary Period . Appeal by Some and Not All Appeal by Offended Party oreo Stay of Execution ..., Motion to Withdraw Appeal . Certificate of Compliance . Scanned with CamScenner 451 463 465 465P NOS FEHR Soe RULE 123 - PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS ... RULE 124 - PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Appointment as a Matter of Course . Appointment by Request Exchange of Brief Efficient Use of Paper Rule Contents of Appellant's Brief . Contents of Appellee’s Brief Abandonment .... Failure to Prosecut« Actions Taken by the Court on Appeal Presumption on Appeal Remand ... Certification to the Supreme Court Different Rule with the Sandiganbayan New Trial .... Motion for Reconsideration Mittimus RULE 125 - PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT Procedure in the Supreme Court Supreme Court En Banc . RULE 126 — SEARCH AND SEIZURE Search Warrant .... Special Criminal Process Issued in the Name of the People of the Philippines Distinguish Proceedings for Issuance or Quashal of Search Warrant with Preliminary Investigation Application for Search Warrant Special Criminal Cases... Private Complainants May Participate in Applications for Search Warrants . Warrantless Searches Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant Types of Cyber Warrants; Application Process . xxi Scanned with CamScenner 467511 11. Knock and Announce Principle 12. Exceptions .... 13. Implementation of Search Warrant 14. The Chain of Custody in Drug Cases 15. Delivery and Inventory . 16. Court's Duty ..... 17. Search Incident of Lawful Arrest 18. Motions to Quash/Suppress Evidence . 19. Comparison Between Search Warrant and Warrant of Arrest . 523 RULE 127 — PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES Nature of Provisional Remedies 526 Topic Index... Scanned with CamScennerINTRODUCTION This Criminal Procedure Book tries to capture important academic, legal, and practical issues in criminal procedure. It will, in a capsulized form, present the following: 15 Criminal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and the trial courts. Jurisdiction and powers of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice. Special jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction of courts including the power to issue Hold Departure Orders. The role of the Solicitor General in appealed cases, i.e., final judgment and interlocutory orders. Commencement and prosecution of criminal actions in the Philippines, including those offenses committed outside of the Philippines or extraterritorially. Interruption of the prescriptive periods for offenses under the Revised Penal Code, special laws and summary procedure. Sufficiency of complaint or information, i.e, name of the accused, designation of the offense by the statutes, acts or commission constituting the offense, name of the offended party, approximate date of the commission of the offense and the place of its commission. Remedy for an insufficient information or when the information does not constitute an offense. Determination of when to amend or substitute the information, or downgrade the offense charged. Institution of civil action with the criminal action except when there is reservation, waiver, or when the civil case action is instituted ahead of the criminal action. Significant issues such as filing fees in criminal cases, kinds of acquittal and its effects, the various effects of death of the accused in criminal cases, substitution of the accused by reason of death in independent civil action and those arising from other sources of obligation, and prejudicial question and its kinds, Requirement of preliminary investigation in actions filed before the Office of the Prosecutor, The concept of probable cause, its definition and effect of absence of preliminary investigation. Before whom preliminary investigation can’ be conducted, and the procedure of preliminary investigation. Distinction xxiii Scanned with CamScennerPARTI COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION 1, Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Accused N 3. Venue and Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases: Venue is Jurisdictional 4, Adherence of Jurisdiction 5. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 6. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals 7. Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals 8. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts 9. Special Law vis-4-vis Special Law 10. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts 11. Lupong Tagapamayapa 12. Summary Procedure 13. Hold Departure Order 14. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan 15. Jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman 16. Powers of the Department of Justice 17. Role of the Office of the Solicitor General in Criminal Cases Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of criminal law. Because its proceedings deal with the life or liberty of an accused, jurisdiction is an important issue in criminal procedure. It is the basic foundation of judicial proceedings. So important is jurisdiction in criminal proceedings that the Supreme Court has held that “it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense ofa trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense.”* This is so because “where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, courts must keep strictly within the limits of the law authorizing them to take jurisdiction and to try the case and render judgment thereon.”? 1 Javier v, Sandiganbayan, G.R, Nos. 147026-27, 11 September 2009; Buaya v. Polo, G.R. No. L-75079, 26 January 1989. 2 Treas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, 25 January 2012; Fukuzwme v, People, G.R. No. 143647, 11 November 2005, citing Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117363, 17 December 1999. 1 Scanned with CamScenner2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE se of judicial power, The word “jurisdiction” as applied to the exerci may have reference is used in several different, though related, senses: “it may e to (1) the authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action or to administer a particular kind of relief, or it may refer to the power of the court over the parties, or (2) over the property which is the subject to the litigation.”? In general, however, jurisdiction refers to the court's “ ‘authority to hear and try a particular case and impose the punishment for it.”* Incriminal procedure, this translates to (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed, and (8) jurisdiction over the person of the accused. gybject mastor — i Jurisdiction over the subject matter is “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.”* It is “conferred by the sovereign authority that organized the court and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.”* Stated otherwise, jurisdiction of a court is defined hy the Constitution or statute. Moreover, the elements of that definition must appear in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over a case. Hence, the rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined “by the allegations in the complaint or information,”” and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial.* Jurisdiction over the subject matter “cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise.” Further, it is “not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion to quash. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of defendant or respondent.” 3 El Banco Espatiol-Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390, 26 March 1918; Platinum Tours & Travel, Inc. v. Panlilio, G.R. No. 133365, 16 September 2003. + People v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-40527, 30 June 1976. 5 Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-48754, 26 November 1941. Treas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, 25 January 2012; Machado v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 156287, 16 February 2010; Valdepeiias v. People, G.R. No. L-20687, 30 April 1966; Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. L-68544, 27 October 1986. 7 People v. Magallanes, G.R. Nos. 118013-14, 11 October 1995, citing Republic v. Asuncion, GR. No. 108208, 11 March 1994. * People v. Magallanes, G.R. Nos. 118013-14, 11 October 1995, citing U.S. v. Mallari, GR. No. L-7108, 20 February 1913; People v. Co Hiok, G.R. No. L-43154, 07 November 1935; People v. Ocaya, 83 SCRA 218 (1978). ° Treas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, 25 January 2012. % ‘Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008, citing Commart (Phils.), Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 85318, 03 June 1991. Scanned with CamScennerPARTI 3 COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION As a consequence, any judgment, order or resolution issued without jurisdiction over the subject matter is yoid and cannot be given any effect." This is the case “even if the question of jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal or even after judgment.”” Thus, “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may_be raised at any stage of the proceedings.” An exception exists in the extraordinary instance where estoppel by laches may apply, as in the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy wherein the motion to dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter was filed only after 15 years and after having filed several motions seeking affirmative relief with the court. In that case, the Court said that “it is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.’ As applied to criminal cases, the Supreme Court has also categorically declared in People v. Regalario that “the principle of estoppel by laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction has been adopted and repeatedly applied by this Court, notably in Tijam, et al. v. Sibonghanoy, et al., and in several cases which followed thereafter, including criminal cases.”16 In determining whether a case lies within the jurisdiction of a court, reference to the applicable statute on the matter is indispensable. The “applicable statute” is one that is in force not during the arraignment of the accused,’” but at the time of the commencement of the action."® Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, is the general law that c¢ rs jurisdiction over the subject matter for ordinary courts. However, there are various special laws that confer jurisdiction to courts. Junisoreron over rue[PeRSouJor tHe AccuseD Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his apprehension, with or without warrant, or by his voluntary appearance.” This voluntary appearance may either be the appearance of accused 1 “Magno v. People, G.R. No. 171542, 06 April 2011. 2 Magno v. People, G.R. No. 171542, 06 April 2011. ® Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, 12 February 2014; Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corporation, G.R. No. 162322, 14 March 2012. 4 Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April 1968. 5 Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April 1968. % People v. Regalario, G.R. No. 101451, 23 March 1993. ¥ alana v. People, G.R. No. 149995, 28 September 2007. 8 Escobal v. Justice Garchitorena, G.R. No. 124644, 05 February 2004; Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125297, 06 June 2003; Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136806, 22 August 2000; Dela Cruz v. Moya, G.R. No. 65192, 27 April 1988; Tolentino v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. L-28870, 06 September 1985. Valdepeiias v. People, G.R. No. L-20687, 30 April 1966. Scanned with CamScennerH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE a counsel for an accused.’! By for arraignment,” or the appearance of r a person is also deemed to seeking affirmative reliefs from the court, 1 ° d have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of said court. Exceptions to the rule on voluntary appearance are those deemed merely special appearances, or those “whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court.” In criminal cases, these pleadings are: (1) motion to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and (2) motion to quash a warrant of arrest. The first is a consequence of the fact that failure to file it would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The second is a consequence of the fact that the motion to quash questions the very legality of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused.¥ Therefore, the act of an accused in posting bail without qualifying his appearance therein, or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief was held as tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. While jurisdiction over the subject matter generally cannot be the subject of waiver, jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be waived. Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his lea. If not seasonably made, the objection is deemed waived.* The act of entering a plea and participating actively in the trial thus amounts to a submission to the jurisdiction of the court.” Jurisdiction over the person is different from custody of the law, as succinctly explained in jurisprudence: Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the law » Jimenez v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988 2 Layosa v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-46080, 10 November 1978. 2 Sapugay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86792, 21 March 1990; Santiago v. Vasquez, GR. Nos. 99289-90, 27 January 1993, > Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763,31 March 2006. x“ Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 March 2006. % People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, 25 March 2014; Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 March 2006; Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, 27 January 1993; Cojuanco v. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 134307, 21 December 1998; Velasco v. Court of Appeals, GR. No. L-31018, 29 June 1973. % People v, Tidula, 292 SCRA 596 (1998), citing People v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 104663, 24 July 1997. 2 People v. Ayangao, GR. No. 142356, 14 April 2004. Scanned with CamScennerPARTI COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.* VENUE AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES: VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL Venue for the Purposes of Institution of the Criminal Action, is Jurisdictional Venue in criminal cases is different from that in civil cases. In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional” This means that for jurisdiction over the territory 10 be acquired by courts in criminal cases, “the offense should have been committed or any one of ii i ce within the territorial jurisdicti t.” Thus, a court cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside of its territory." — Section 15(a) of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court additionally provides that “[s}ubject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.” The place of commission of the offense or any of its essential ingredients determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. Two reasons have been posited for this rule: First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and try cases * Dalmacio v. Tuliao, G.R, No. 158763, 31 March 2006. ® Treas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, 25 January 2012; Isip v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170298, 26 June 2007. © Uy. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119000, 28 July 1997. % Treas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, 25 January 2012; Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119000, 28 July 1998. Scanned with CamScenner6 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE involving crimes committed within its territor a Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is Broun le a the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in fe municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available. Transitory or continuing offenses are those crimes wherein “some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their consummation Occur in one municipality or territory and some in another.”® In such cases, the action shall be instituted where any of its essential ingredients, or elements, occurred, For example, in cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, venue shall be in any of the following places: where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored. In a prosecution for estafa under Article 315(3) of the Revised Penal Code, the venue shall be either where the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses of the accused wére made, or where the damage was consummated, as “deceit and damage are the basic elements of estafa.”** In kidnapping, the venue shall be wherever the victim is deprived of liberty as “the deprivation of liberty is persistent and continuing from one place to another.” To determine whether the court has jurisdiction over a criminal case, the allegations in the complaint or information are examined. However, if in the course..of.the-trial.the. evidence .Shows that the offense was committed elsewhere, “the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.””” An exception to this rule are offenses with extraterritorial application, which are discussed in further detail in Section 15, Rule 110. The rule that venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional is not applicable to applications for search warrants, because these are strictly speaking, not criminal cases. In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Romars Int'l Gases Corp., the court characterized a search warrant as “a special criminal process,” and thus concluded that “proceedings for said applications are not criminal in nature and, thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto”: Unfortunately, the foregoing reasoning of the CA, is inceptionally flawed, because as pronounced by the Court in Union Bank of the Philippines v, People, G.R. No, 192565, 28 February 2012. Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, 17 November 2004, Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, 17 November 2004, Tuzon v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-27410, 28 August 1975, People v. Grospe, G.R. No. 74053, 20 January 1988, Isip v. People, G.R. No. 170298, 26 June 2007. eR eee se Scanned with CamScennerPARTI COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, and reiterated in the more recent Worldwide Web Corporation v. People of the Philippines, to wit: xxx as we held in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, an application for a search warrant is a “special criminal process,” rather than a criminal action: The basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously equating the application for and the obtention of a search warrant with the institution and prosecution of a criminal action ina trial court. It would thus categorize what is only a special criminal process, the power to issue which is inherent in all courts, as equivalent to a criminal action, jurisdiction over which is reposed in specific courts of indicated competence. It ignores the fact that the requisites, procedure and purpose for the issuance of a search warrant are completely different from those for the institution of a criminal action. For, indeed, a warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely constitutes process. A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines signed by a judge and directed toa“ peace officer, commanding him'to search for personal property and bring it before the court. A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity. In American jurisdictions, from which we have taken our jural concept and provisions on search warrants, such warrant is definitively considered merely as generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction. xxx. Clearly then, an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. xx ‘The foregoing explanation shows why the CA arrived at the wrong conclusion. It gravely erred in equating the proceedings for applications for search warrants with criminal actions themselves. As elucidated by the Court, proceedings for said Scanned with CamScenner. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE applications are not criminal in nature and, thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto. Evidently, the issue of whether the application should have been filed in RTC- Iriga City or RTC-Naga, is not one involving jurisdiction because, as stated in the afore-quoted case, the power to issue a special criminal process|is inherent in all courts.¥ (Emphasis supplied.) Transfer of Venue in Criminal Cases While venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases and cannot be the subject of waiver or stipulation, this however does not derogate from an accused’s right to ask for, or from the Supreme Court's power to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice. Transfer of venue of trial is not equivalent to surrender of territorial jurisdiction and is thus not a violation of the requirement of jurisdiction. Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph 4 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has the power to “[o]rder a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.” This power is inherent; the Supreme Court can “decree that the trial and disposition of a case pending in a Court of First Instance be transferred to another Court of First Instance within the same district whenever the interest of justice and truth so. demand, and there are serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the court that originally had jurisdiction over the case would not result in a fair and impartial trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice.” In the Supreme Court resolution authorizing the transfer of venue of the cases involving the Maguindanao Massacre to Quezon City, it narrated the purpose of the said constitutional provision: The purpose of provision is to ferret out the truth from the opposing claims of the parties in a controversy by means of a fair and impartial inquiry. Consequently, where there are serious and weighty reasons present that would prevent the court of original jurisdiction from conducting a fair and impartial trial, this Court has been mandated to order a change of venue so.as to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” WISRRRLRCE oF JUSTICE 1as Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Romars Int'l Gases Corp.,G.R. No. 189669, 16 February 2015. 2% People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No, L-32282-83, 26 November 1970. “© Re: Petition for Change of Trial Venue of Criminal Case No. SA-198, People v. Dattt ‘Andal Ampatuan, Sr., et al. for Rebellion from the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-1-06-RTC, 12 January 2010, citing ‘Mondiguing v. Abaci, G.R. No. 41313, 06 November 1975. Scanned with CamScennerPARTI 9 COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION The same resolution likewise enumerated several circumstances which may justify a change of venue: Among the reasons sufficient lo justify a change of venue is the reluctance of witness estify-out of fear for their personal security. Corollaril ile sentiment against the accused at the place of the trial, giving rise to the possibility that his life could be placed in danger, is sufficient and justifiable cause to order a change of venue of the trial.!! Therefore, the rule that venue is jurisdictional should be more completely stated as: venue, for the purpose of institution of a criminal action, is jurisdictional, The Motion to Transfer Venue of Trial should be filed with the Supreme || Court before trial. ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION As a general rule, the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.2 A consequence of this is the concept of adherence of jurisdiction, the general tule and exception of which is stated as follows: Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of a statute.” Andal Anipatuan, Sr, et al, for Re | it the Regional Trial Court of (Quezon City, A.M, No. 10-1-06-RTC, 12 January 2010, citing People v, Pilotin, G.R, Nos. 35377-78, 31 July 19 People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169004, 15 Septemb bayan, G.R. No, 167304, 25 August 2009; People v, Velas 1996. © People v, Velasco, G.R. No. 110592, 23 January 1996. Scanned with CamScenner10 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT Article VIII, Section 5 provides the jurisd: with respect to criminal cases: Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the powers: ction of the Supreme Court following (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and hhabeas corpus. (2). Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: conse hcioraltis (a) Allcases in which the constitutionality or validity Waateacitees of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (b) Allcases involving the legality of any tax, impost, Question assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation re: tax. /aseswen,thereto. i (©) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower | court is in issue. (d) Allcriminal cases in which the penalty imposed Js reghiision perpetua oc higher. (@) All cases in which only an error or question of Quethen of (> Jaw is involved. [..] (Emphasis supplied.) JURISDICTION OF THE CouRT OF APPEALS Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, provides for the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Section 9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall exercise: 1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; 2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regi rial Courts; and Scanned with CamScennerPARTI = COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION ; 3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation. Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve( factual issued raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. JURISDICTION OF THE CourT oF TAX APPEALS. Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282, provides for the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals in criminal cases: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise: L.-J b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: ogi 1. [Exclusive original jurisdiction] over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Couris and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of Scanned with CamScenner2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized. 2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses: a. Overappeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction. b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction. c. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shalll be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court. 2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases: a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction. b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Scanned with CamScennerPARTI 2B ‘COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction. JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL CouRTS Original Jurisdiction The regional trial courts have either exclusive original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, or special jurisdiction, depending on the cases before them. Sections 20, 22, and 23 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, determine the cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) and the type of jurisdiction that they exercise: pedusive Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. - Regional Trial Original Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all Appel criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, 030 tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive 5p and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. This means that generally, the RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses where the imposable penalty exceeds six (6) years loys imprisonment, regardless of the fine or accessory penalty. Moreover, where imprisonment the imposable penalty is only a fine, and the said amount exceeds 4,000 {fing Be908, then exclusive original jurisdiction likewise lies with the RTC. Fore However, there are instances where jurisdiction is vested in the Regional Trial Court regardless of the imposable penalty or fine. In De Lima. Guerrero, the Supreme Court reiterated that “jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other”: The pertinent special law governing drug-related cases is RA 9165, which updated the rules provided in RA 6425, brug fitatud otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. A plain Cones reading of RA 9165, as of RA 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is| exclusively) \vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other. The designation of the RTC as the court with the exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases “Administrative Circular No. 09-94, 14 June 1994, © De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, 10 October 2017. Scanned with CamScennerBlecher why, Yfke +b begnlos X polars foe 14 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE is apparent in the following provisions where it was expressly mentioned and recognized as the only court with the authority to hear drug-related cases: Ll Notably, no other trial court was mentioned in RA 9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of drug-related cases. Thus, in Morales v. Court of Appeals, this Court categorically named the RTC as the court with jurisdiction over drug related- cases [...]* Moreover, in Juan v. People,’ it was stated that “[u]nder Section 268 of the [Omnibus Election] Code, Regional Trial Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceeding for violation of the Code, ‘except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote.” Thus, the RTC did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of a criminal case for falsification since falsification of public document under Article 172(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which is punishable by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (or imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years) and a fine of not more than P5,000.00, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts pursuant to Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. Appellate Jurisdiction Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be appealed to the Regional Trial Court in the respective territorial jurisdiction. Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions, Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, 10 October 2017. © Juan v. People, G.R. No. 132378, 18 January 2000. Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, 12 February 2014. ® Scanned with CamScennerPARTI 15 COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.” This provision has been embodied in Sections 3 and 9, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. Special Jurisdiction In addition to the foregoing, some branches of Regional Trial Courts may be designated by the Supreme Court to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.” Special Laws Moreover, there are special laws and rules providing for jurisdiction for certain kinds of offenses to which Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 must yield to! These special laws generally provide that despite the imposable penalty of the offenses involved in these laws not exceeding six (6) years, original exclusive jurisdiction therein lies with the Regional Trial Court or Sandiganbayan, whichever is applicable, and not with the first level courts such as the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs. (1) Libel Cases For the crime of libel, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended reads in part: [...] The criminal 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 © BP Blg. 129, as amended, Section 22. ® BP Blg. 129, as amended, Section 23. 5 See Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126623, 12 December 1997. Scanned with CamScennerbo CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 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 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: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law. [...]* Pursuant to and in accordance with this provision of law, Administrative Order No. 104-96 mandates that libel cases shall be tried by the Regional Trial Courts having jurisdiction over them to the exclusion of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. (2) Election Offenses — The Omnibus Election Code provides that “[t]he regional trial court shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of this Code, except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts.”* (3) Intellectual Property Cases Section 27 of Republic Act No. 166 provides that “[a]ll actions under this Chapter [Infringement] and Chapters VI [Unfair Competition] and VII [False Designation of Origin and False Description] hereof shall be ” Moreover, Section 163 of brought before the proper Court of First Instance. = Revised Penal Code, Article 360. - . 5 Morales v. Court of Appeals, C.R. No. 126623, 12 December 1997; Administrative Order No. 104-96. Omnibus Election Code, Section 268. Scanned with CamScennerPARTI bed COURTS AND ITS JURISDICTION Republic Act No. 8293, or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines provides that “all actions under Sections 150, 155, 164, and 166 to 169 shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws.” ___ Jurisprudence has clarified that the RTC has original exclusive jurisdiction over these said offenses even if they may be punishable by an imposable penalty not exceeding six (6) years: Moreover, the settled rule in statutory construction is that in case of conflict between a general law and a special law, must prevail. Jurisdiction conferred by a special law to Trial Courts must prevail over that granted by a general law to Municipal Trial Courts. In the case at bar, R.A. No. $293 and R.A. No. 166 are special laws conferring jurisdiction over violations of intellectual property rights to the Regional Trial Court. They should therefore prevail over R.A. No. 7691, which is a general law. Hence, jurisdiction over the instant criminal case for unfair competition is properly lodged with the Regional ‘Trial Court even if the penalty therefor is imprisonment of less than 6 years, or from 2 to 5 years and a fine ranging from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00.°° Sjecead Agmainn Cruls (4) Agrarian Cases “Republic Act No. 6657 confers jurisdiction on Special Agrarian Courts designated by the Supreme Court in every province. By law, the Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the prosecution of all criminal offenses involving agrarian cases. Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides: Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act, The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act. The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision. 5 Samson v. Cabanos, G-R. No. 161693, 28 June 2005. % — RANo. 6657, Section 56. Scanned with CamScenner