CvSU Mission
CvSU Vision
Republic of the Philippines
The Cavite State University shall provide
The premier university in historic CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY excellent, equitable and relevant educational
Cavite recognized for excellence in
the development of globally
Don Severino de las Alas Campus opportunities in the arts, sciences and
technology through quality instruction,
competitive and morally upright Indang, Cavite responsive research and development activities.
individuals
(046) 4150-010 It shall produce professional, skilled and
www.cvsu.edu.ph morally upright individuals for global
competitiveness.
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND COURT TESTIMONY
CHAPTER 1
PRELIMINARIES
OVERVIEW:
This chapter is about the basic concepts of Criminal Procedure. It is important for you to know
these basic concepts before the discussion of the procedure itself. This chapter includes the
definition and nature of Criminal Procedure; how to interpret the rules; due process in relation
to criminal actions; and the requisites for the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction.
OBJECTIVES
After completing this module you will be able to:
1. Define what is Criminal Procedure
2. Identify what are the basic concepts in Criminal Procedure
DISCUSSION
Definition:
Criminal Procedure- a proceeding whereby the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law.
- It treats of the series of processes by which the criminal laws are enforced and by which the
State prosecutes persons who violate the penal laws. In the clear language of the court, criminal
procedure “regulates the steps by which one who committed a crime is to be punished” (People
vs. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267).
Systems/Nature of Criminal Proceeding
Criminal Proceeding is ADVERSARIAL and ACCUSATORIAL in character as it involves two (2)
contending parties, the prosecution, and the defense.
1. Inquisitorial - The detection and prosecution of offenders are not left to the initiative
of private parties but to the officials and agents of the law.
2. Accusatorial - The accusation is exercised by every citizen or by a member of the
group to which the injured party belongs.
As the action is a combat between the parties, the supposed offender has the right to be
confronted by his accuser. The battle in the form of a public trial is judged by a
magistrate who renders the verdict.
3. The Mixed System - This is a combination of the inquisitorial and the accusatorial
systems.
Liberal Interpretation of the Rules
The rules on criminal procedure, being part 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” (Section 6, Rule 1 Rules of Court)
Due Process
Due process in criminal proceedings is mandatory and indispensable and cannot be met without
proverbial “law which hears before it condemns it condemns and proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgement only after trial.” (Quotation from albert vs. University Publishing House, G.R. No. L-
19118, January 30, 1965)
Monte vs. Savellano, Jr. 287 SCRA 245, enumerates the requirements of due process, 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 the opportunity to be heard; and
d) That judgement is rendered only upon lawful hearing
Requisites for the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction
A reading of jurisprudence and treaties on the matter discloses the following basic requirements
before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases. (Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 72):
a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b) Jurisdiction over the territory; and
c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Jurisdiction over the subject matter versus jurisdiction over the person of the accused
1. 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.
2. 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).
Jurisdiction over the territory; venue in criminal cases (Bar 1997)
1. This element requires that the offense must have been committed within the court's territorial
jurisdiction (An- tiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551). 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).
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).
When a court has jurisdiction to try offenses not committed within its territorial jurisdiction
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. 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).
Under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago but also outside of its jurisdiction against
offenders 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 above;
• While being public officers and 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.
Included in crimes against national security are the crimes of (i) treason, (ii) conspiracy and proposal
to commit treason, (iii) misprision of treason, (iv) espionage, (v) inciting to war and giving motives for
reprisal, (vi) violation of neutrality, (vii) correspondence with hostile country, and (viii) flight to
enemy's country (Articles 114-121, Revised Penal Code).
Crimes against the law of nations are piracy and mutiny described under Article 122 of the Revised
Penal Code and qualified piracy under Article 123 thereof.
The statute applicable to a criminal action
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).
Use of the imposable penalty
1. In determining whether or not the court has jurisdiction over an offense, we consider the penalty
which may be imposed upon the accused and not the actual penalty imposed after the trial (People v.
Purisima, L-40902, February 18,1976; People v. Savellano, L-39951, September 9,1982).
2. The jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial,
or even by the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial, but by the extent of the penalty
which the law imposes for the offense, on the basis of the facts alleged in the information or complaint
(People v. Buissan, 105 SCRA 547; People v. Purisima, 69 SCRA 341).
EVALUATION
TRUE OR FALSE:
___________1. The criminal justice in the Philippines follows a mixed system of
inquisitorial and accusatorial systems.
___________2. The rules on criminal procedure, being part 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”.
___________3. Due process in criminal proceedings is mandatory and indispensable.
___________4. before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases, it must have
jurisdiction over the subject matter, territory, and person of the accused.
___________5. The Philippines court has jurisdiction to try offenses not committed
within its territorial jurisdiction.
REFERENCES
• Criminal Procedure: The Bar Lecture Series, Williard B. Riano
• Criminal Procedure: A Comprehensive Approach for the Bench and the Bar,
Ferdinand A. Tan
Prepared by:
Atty. TRIXIA THERESA R. PILAPIL
Atty. AUREA ELEIN M. MONTALLA
