Second Pillar -Prosecution

In this stage of justice system, determination of the legality of the action of the law
enforcer and the evaluation of evidence presented takes place. Likewise, presence of
probable cause to warrant prosecution known as Preliminary investigation will be
determined.
Three (3) main functions of the prosecution pillar
1. To conduct Preliminary Investigation
2. To conduct Inquest Proceeding
3. To act as the lawyer of the state in criminal prosecution

The Department of Justice (DOJ)

The Department of Justice (DOJ) obtains its functions from Executive Order No. 292
(Administrative Code of 1987). Its mandate is to uphold the rule of law and ensure the
effective and efficient administration of justice. It is the principal law agency and legal
counsel of the government. It is headed by the Secretary of Justice, assisted by three
(3) Undersecretaries, three (3) Assistant Secretaries, the Chief State Prosecutor, the
Chief Sate Counsel, the Bureau of Corrections, the Board of Pardons and Parole, and
Support Services namely the technical Staff, Financial and management Service,
Administrative Service and management Service Office.

National Prosecution Service (NPS)

Assists the Secretary of Justice in the performance of powers and functions. Of the
Department relative to its role as the prosecution arm of the government particularly
investigation and prosecution of all criminal cases, except those under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Officially constituted on April 11, 1978 with the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 1275
by late President Ferdinand Marcos. The NPS consists of the Office of the Chief State
Prosecutor and the Offices of the Regional State Prosecutor, Provincial and City
Prosecutors. It likewise abolished the position title of “fiscal” to “prosecutor” to reflect
more accurately the position’s basic functions.
In the passage of RA No. 10071, An Act Strengthening and Rationalizing the National
Prosecution Service. The Act changes the title Chief State Prosecutor into Prosecutor
General who heads the National Prosecution Service.
Prosecutor General is assisted by five (5) Senior Deputy State Prosecutors (Formerly
Assistant Chief State Prosecutors) and a host of Senior Assistant State Prosecutors,
Assistant State Prosecutors and Prosecution Attorneys. Regional, Provincial and City
Prosecution Offices remain the same as constituted in PD No. 1275.
The role of the government's premier prosecution arm was re-affirmed and fortified
under Republic Act No. 10071.
Note:
The NPS is under the supervision and control of the DOJ. NPS is considered as the
prosecutorial arm of the government.
The Public Prosecutor
It is demanded of him nothing less than utmost diligence, unquestionable honesty,
unblemished integrity and quiet dedication to serve the people at all times. (Atty. Claro
A. Arellano, Prosecutor General)
The public prosecutors do not only initiate criminal action in the name of the People of
the Philippines, they also serve as the trial or prosecution officers before the criminal
court. Moreover, the prosecutors decide whether or not to prosecute a case, or hold the
case open for further action.
The Private Prosecutor
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: “Civil liability of a person guilty of
felony Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civ liable". Because of this, the
private complainant may acquire the services of a private counsel to act as a private
prosecutor to protect his civil rights as a result of a felony. However, the private
prosecutor is under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutor.

Complaint
A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed
by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated. (Section 3, Rule 110)
Information
Information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by
the prosecutor and filed with the court. (Section 4, Rule 110)
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Preliminary Investigation (PI)
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial (Section 1,
Rule 112).
A preliminary investigation is not a trial but is, in certain cases, the initial step towards
the criminal prosecution of a person. It is a mere inquiry or a proceeding which do not
involve the examination of witnesses by way of direct or cross examinations. Its purpose
is not to determine the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, but to
determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is
probably guilty of said crime.
Preliminary investigation does not require the full and exhaustive presentation of every
evidence available to the persons involved but merely such evidence as may engender
a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof.

Probable Cause, defined:

As used in preliminary investigation, probable cause is defined as the existence of such
facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he was prosecuted. (Gonzales vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corp., 537 SCRA 255)

Notes:
Under AM No. 05-8-26-SC effective October 3, 2005, only the following may conduct
preliminary investigation:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistance;
(b) National and regional State Prosecutors; and
© other officers as may be authorized by law.
A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the means of
discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the
prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. (De Chavez vs. OMB, 513 SCRA
638)

When PI is required
Before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the law prescribes a
penalty of at least 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day without regard to the fine. (Section 1,
Rule 112).
Note:
A preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or
information for offenses where the penalty prescribed is at least 4 years 2 months and 1
day without regards to fine.
Exception: When the accused lawfully arrested without warrant (Section 7, Rule 112)

CHAPTER 4
Third Pillar – Court
In this stage of criminal justice system, judicial determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused is under consideration. Our Constitution ordains that judicial powers shall
be vested in one Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law
(Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution).
Prior to June 11, 1901, there are institutions that exercise judicial power. Prior to the
Spanish conquests of the Philippines, the barangay chiefs have judicial authority. During
that period, the judicial powers are vested upon Miguel Lopez de Legazpi who is the
first governor-general of the Philippines. He exercised civil and criminal justice by virtue
of the Royal Order of August 14, 1569. The Royal Audiencia, a collegial body
established on May 5, 1583 exercises judicial function that was composed of a
President, four Oidores (Justices), and a Fiscal. It was the highest tribunal in the
Philippines, below only to the Consejo de Indias of Spain. It also exercises
administrative functions. It’s functions and structure underwent substantial modifications
in 1815 when its President was replaced by a Chief Justice and the number of justices
was increased. It then became known as the Audencia Territorial de Manila with a
branch each for civil and criminal cases, the sala de lo civil and sala de lo criminal. It
was converted to a purely judicial body a Royal Decree issued on July 4, 1861. It’s
decisions were appealable to the Supreme Court of Spain sitting in Madrid. On
February 26, 1886, a territorial Audencia was organized in Cebu, followed by an
Audiencia for criminal cases in Vigan. However, the pre-eminence of the Supreme Court
as the sole interpreter of the law was unknown during the Spanish regime. (Lawyers
Review January 31, 2011)

Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines

The Supreme Court of the Philippines was created on June 11, 1901. Act 136 of the
Second Philippine Commission (the Judicial Law) took effect on that date. The judicial
power in the country was vested in the Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance, and
Justice of the Peace courts. Other courts were subsequently established. When the
Americans took over the Philippines government from the Spaniards in 1898, Gen.
Wesley Merritt established a military government, suspended the criminal jurisdiction of
Audiencias, and organized military Commissions or court martial and provost courts. On
May 29, 1899, major General Elwell Otis issued general Order No. 20 that re-
established the Audiencia. He gave it jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases but only
insofar as this was compatible with the sovereignty of the United States. The Order
named six Filipinos as members of the Audiencia. Cayetano Arellano was the first Chief
Justice. The Audiencia was abolished with the enactment of Act 136 on June 11, 1901.
The new Supreme Court promulgated Its first decision on August 8, 1901. Americans
took over the Supreme Court from 1901 to 1935. Although a Filipino was always
appointed a Chief Justice, majority of the members of SC were Americans. Complete
Filipino membership was achieved only with the establishment of the Commonwealth in
1935. Claro Recto and Jose Laurel were among the first Filipino justices replacing the
American justices.
With the ratification by the Filipino people of the 1935 Constitution on May 14, 1935, the
membership in the SC was increased to eleven, composed of a Chief Justice and ten
associate justices. The judicial structure introduced by Act 136 was affirmed by the US
Congress with the passage of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The Administrative Code of
1917 ordained the Supreme Court as the highest judicial tribunal with nine members
composed of Chief Justice and eight associate justices. Judicial independence and
complete Filipino membership were realized with the act 136. Unlike the tribunals
established earlier, SC was not made subservient to colonial, military, or executive
sovereigns. The judicial structure introduced by Act 136 was reaffirmed by the US
Congress with the passage of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The Administrative Code of
1917 ordained the Supreme Court as the highest judicial tribunal with nine members
composed of Chief Justice and eight associate justices. Judiciary reorganization Act of
1980 (BP Blg. 129) which took effect on January 18, 1983 provides that the Philippine
judicial System. (Lawyers Review January 31, 2011)
At present, the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. It may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in division of three, five of seven
members (Section 4 (1) of Article VIII, 1987 Constitution).

Court, defined
A governmental body officially assembled under the authority of law at the appropriate
time and place for the administration of justice through which the state enforces its
sovereign rights and power.

Judicial Power
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as
may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government (Section 1,
Article VIII, 1987 Constitution).
Functions of the Court
1. Keeping the peace
2. Deciding controversies
3. Administrative Role
Different Judicial Courts in the Philippines
a. The Supreme Court
b. Court of Appeals
c. Court of Tax Appeals
d. Sandiganbayan
e. Regional Trial Court
f. Municipal Trial Courts
g. Family Court
h. Shari’a Court
Note: Is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for
it. Criminal jurisdiction is essential because without this the court cannot hear, try and
decide to a particular case.
Requisites for Valid Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter – the offense, by virtue of the imposable
penalty or its nature, is one which the court is by law authorized to take
cognizance of.
Notes:
 To determine the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter, the law in force
should be looked into. Be guided of the following questions:
1. Does the law confer jurisdiction over Court to hear Case A? or
2. Does the court have jurisdiction over the offense by virtue of the imposable
penalty and its nature.
 Remember that under the law, offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more
than 6 years is cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court, Whereas, those that
more than 6 years (meaning, 6 years and 1 day or more) are under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

2. Jurisdiction over the territory – The offense must have been committed or any
of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
It cannot be waived and where the place of the commission was not specially
charged, the place may be shown by evidence.
Notes:
 The question to be asked here is whether or not the action has been filed within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Remember that in Criminal Procedure, the
place where the crime is committed confers the court territorial jurisdiction over
that case.
 Jurisdiction over the territory refers to venue or the place where the case is to be
tried. The action should be instituted and tried in the municipality or territory
where offense has been committed or where any one of the essential ingredients
thereof took place. (Read Sec 15(a), Rule 110)
 It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that for transitory or
continuing offenses (delito continuado), the courts of the territories where the
essential ingredients of the crime took place have concurrent jurisdiction. The
first court taking cognizance of the case will exclude the others.
 For those Complex Crimes, Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime is lodged
with the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable of an offense forming part of the complex crime. It must be
prosecuted integrally and must not be made subject of multiple information
brought in different courts.
 3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused – The person charged with the
offense must have been brought to its presence for trial, forcibly by warrant of
arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.
Note:
This means that power over the person accused of violating a law has been lawfully
acquired. This is either by arrest or voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

Criminal Jurisdiction of various Courts in the Philippines

1. Municipal Trial Courts
a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city/municipal
ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction. (Sec.
32 (1), BP 129)
b. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine,
and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including
the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof.
Notes:
 Six years and below is under the jurisdiction of MTC.
 Offenses punishable by more than six years (6 years and 1 day and above) are
under the jurisdiction of RTC. (Sec. 32(2), BP 129)
c. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof.
Note:
 Cases for “Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property” is within the
jurisdiction of MTC having jurisdiction over the place where the property is
located. (Sec. 32(2), BP 129; RA 7691)
d. Cases classified under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure: (SC
Resolution dated October 15, 1991)
1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
2. Violations of rental law;
 3. Cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1,000, or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil
liability arising therefrom;
4. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the
imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.
e. Violations of BP 22. (AM No. 0011-01-SC 2003)
f. Special Jurisdiction to decide on application for bail in criminal cases in
the absence of all RTC judges in the province or city. (Sec. 35, ВР 129)

2. Regional Trial Courts

Criminal Jurisdiction of RTC
A. RTC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction
 Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body.
(Sec. 20. BP 129). These include criminal cases where the penalty provided by
law exceeds 6 years imprisonment irrespective of the fine. (RA 7691)
 These also include criminal cases not falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to salary grade “27” and higher. (RA No. 7975 and RA
8249
 But in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the RTC have
jurisdiction if the amount of the fine exceeds P4,000. (RA No. 7691 as clarified by
Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994).
B. RTC’s Appellate Jurisdiction
 All cases decided by lower courts in the respective territorial jurisdiction. (Sec.
22, BP 129)

3. Family Courts (Special Court)

Family Courts’ Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction
a. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below 18 years of
age but not less than 9 years of age, when one or more of the victims is a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, that if the
minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain
any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence,
however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to PD
 1903, otherwise known as “The Child and Youth Welfare Code (RA 8369,
Family Court Act of 1997)
b. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation
to the latter (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC effective May 15, 2003; Sec. 3
A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, effective April 15, 2003.
c. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof; (Secs. A.20
and B.28, A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC, effective August 22, 2002.
d. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage,
and those relating to marital status and property relation of husband and
wife or those living together under different status and agreement, and
petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gain (Sec 2, A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC, effective March 15, 2003)
e. Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for removal of custody
against child-placement or child-caring or individual, and for commitment
of disabled child (AM No. 02-1-19-SC, effective April 15, 2002)
f. Cases against minors cognizable under RA 9165 otherwise known as
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (AM 07-8-2-SC, effective
November 5, 2007)
g. Violation of RA 7610 otherwise known as Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploration and Discrimination Act as amended by
RA 7658 and further amended by RA 9231.
h. RA 9775, Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009
i. Cases of Violence against women and their children under RA 9262,
including applications for protection order under the same Act;
j. Criminal cases involving juveniles if no preliminary investigation is
required under Sec. 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure (Sec. 1 AM No. 02-1-18-SC, effective April 15, 2002)
k.
4. Sharia's Courts (Special Court)
Presidential Decree No. 1083 created the Shari'a Courts, which have limited jurisdiction
over the settlement of issues, controversies or disputes pertaining to the civil relations
between and among Muslim Filipinos.

5. Court of Appeals
a. Exclusive Jurisdiction of CA
b. Concurrent Jurisdiction with Supreme Court
c. Concurrent Jurisdiction with Supreme Court and the RTC
d. Concurrent Jurisdiction with the Sandiganbayan and RTC
e. Ordinary Appeal to the CA
f. Petition for Review with the CA

6. Court of Tax Appeals

CTA Jurisdiction over Cases involving Criminal Offenses

7. Sandiganbayan (SB)
A. Exclusive Jurisdiction of SB
1. Violation of RA 3019, RA 1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised
Penal Code; and other offenses committed by public officials and employees in
relation to their office, and private individuals charged as co-principals,
accomplices, and accessories including those employed on government-owned
and controlled corporations, where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the positions in government, whether in permanent, acting, or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense with classified as salary
grade 27 and higher
2. Civil and Criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. (Section 2, RA 7975 as amended by RA 8249)
3. Violations of RA 9160 or “Anti Money Laundering Act of 2001 as amended by RA
9194, when committed by public officers and private persons who are in
conspiracy with such public officers
B. SB concurrent jurisdiction with SC
Petition for issuance of writ of certiorari, prohibitions, mandamus, habeas corpus and
injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo
warranto arising in cases falling under said Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, 14-A (RA
8249)
C. SB concurrent jurisdiction with SC, CA and RTC
1. Petition for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data when action concerns public
data files of government offices. (Section3 AM No. 07-9-12-SC or the “Rule on
the Writ of Amparo”, effective October 24, 2007; Sections 3. AM no. 08-1-16-SC,
effective February 2, 2008)
 2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibitions, and mandamus, relating to an act or omission
of MTC, corporation, board, officer, or person (Section 4, Rule 65, as amended
by AM No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 12, 2007)
D. SB Appellate Jurisdiction
Decisions and final orders of RTC in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction under PD 1606, as amended, shall be appealable to the Sandiganbayan in
the manner provided by Rule 122 of the rules of Court (Section 5, RA No. 8249)

8. Supreme Court
Powers and functions of the Supreme Court under Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
a. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors.
Other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.
b. 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:
c. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
d. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
e. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
f. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
g. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

BAIL
The accused of a crime is generally not required to be placed in jail pending
investigation/trial of his case due to the Constitutional guarantee for the right to bail.
“All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Definition of Bail
Bail is defined as the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as
required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of
corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance (Section 1, Rule 114).
Note:
A person is allowed to file a petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty by
virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his arraignment
before filing the bail petition (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 149116, January 28,
2003)

Bail, where to file:

1. With the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of
the judge thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province, city,
or municipality.
2. Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be
released on recognizance, the application may only filed in the court where the
case is pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or appeal.
3. Any person in custody who is not yet charge in court may apply for bail with any
court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held.

Bail, a matter of right; exception

All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient
sureties, or released on recognizance
A. Before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and
B. Before conviction by the Regional Trial court of an offense not punishable
( by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. (Section 4, Rule 114)
Note:
If the bail is a matter of right, it cannot be denied on the ground that there exists a high
degree of probability that the accused will abscond or escape. What the court can do is
to increase the amount of the bail. One of the guidelines that the judge may use in fixing
a reasonable amount of bail is the probability of the accused appearing in trial.

Bail is denied in the following circumstances:

1. BEFORE conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
Perpetua, or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is strong;
2. AFTER conviction by the RTC and penalty imposed is death, reclusion Perpetua,
or life imprisonment. This time there is no bail granted even the accused can
appeal; and
3. AFTER conviction by the RTC if the penalty imposed exceeds 6 years and the
circumstances in Section 5 [a-e] are present.
A. That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or
has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of
reiteration;
B. That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid
justification;
C. That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;
D. That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
E. That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during
the pendency of the appeal. (Section 5, Rule 114)