FROM: Atty. Dublin G.

Okoren-Facullo
FOR :CLJ6 Middle Term Class (May-June 2025)

1. IN SEARCH WARRANT, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PARTICULARITY

REQUIREMENT FOR LAW ENFORCERS?

The purpose of the particularity requirement is to enable law enforcers to readily

identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong
items, and to leave said peace o cers with no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized, thereby preventing unreasonable searches and seizures.

2. WHAT IS A SEARCH WARRANT?

A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace o cer, commanding him to
search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. [Rule 126,
Section 1 of the Rules of Court]

3. WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF A SEARCH WARRANT?

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a fundamental right enshrined
in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This right is a cornerstone of individual liberty and
privacy, safeguarding citizens from arbitrary intrusions by the State.

A. Constitutional Provision Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and e ects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or a rmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized." [Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution]

B. Statutory Provision Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the
issuance and execution of search warrants. [Rule 126 of the Rules of Court]

4. WHAT IS THE STATUTORY BASIS OF A SEARCH WARRANT?

II. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR A VALID SEARCH WARRANT

For a search warrant to be valid, it must comply with the following four (4) essential
requisites, as mandated by the Constitution and the Rules of Court:

A. Probable Cause Probable cause, in the context of a search warrant, refers to such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an o ense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with the o ense are in the place sought to be searched. [G.R. No. 182239. April 21,
2014] This probable cause must be in relation to one speci c o ense. [Rule 126,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court]
ff
ff
ff
ffi
ffi
ffi
fi
ff
 B. Personal Determination by the Judge The probable cause must be determined
personally by the judge. This means that the judge cannot simply rely on the a davits
of the applicant and his witnesses. The judge must personally examine them under
oath or a rmation. The purpose of this personal examination is to enable the judge to
determine whether probable cause exists for the issuance of the search warrant. [G.R.
No. 182239. April 21, 2014] The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not
merely routinary or pro forma. [G.R. No. 126462. January 21, 1999]

C. Oath or A rmation The examination of the complainant and the witnesses must be
under oath or a rmation. This requirement ensures the veracity of the statements
made before the judge. [Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution]

D. Particularity of Description The search warrant must particularly describe the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. Particularity of the Place to be Searched: The description of the place to be
searched must be speci c enough to enable the peace o cer to locate the
place without di culty and to prevent him from searching other places. [G.R.
No. 182239. April 21, 2014]
2. Particularity of the Things to be Seized: The articles to be seized must be
described with such particularity as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. This
prevents the seizure of unauthorized items and limits the discretion of the
o cers executing the warrant. [G.R. No. 182239. April 21, 2014] The items that
may be seized are:
◦ Subject of the o ense;
◦ Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the o ense; or
◦ Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an o ense.
[Rule 126, Section 3 of the Rules of Court]
III. PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT
The procedure for the issuance of a search warrant is outlined in Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:
A. Application

5. For a search warrant to be valid, it must comply with the following four (4)
essential requisites, as mandated by the Constitution and the Rules of Court and
one of the requisites is probable cause. DEFINE AND EXPLAIN PROBABLE
CAUSE IN THE CONTEXT OF A SEARCH WARRANT.

6. For a search warrant to be valid, it must comply with the following four (4)
essential requisites, as mandated by the Constitution and the Rules of Court. One
of which is Personal Determination by the Judge. DEFINE AND EXPLAIN THIS
REQUISITE.

B. Personal Determination by the Judge The probable cause must be determined

personally by the judge. This means that the judge cannot simply rely on the a davits
of the applicant and his witnesses. The judge must personally examine them under
oath or a rmation. The purpose of this personal examination is to enable the judge to
determine whether probable cause exists for the issuance of the search warrant. [G.R.
No. 182239. April 21, 2014] The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not
merely routinary or pro forma. [G.R. No. 126462. January 21, 1999]

7. For a search warrant to be valid, it must comply with the following four (4)
essential requisites, as mandated by the Constitution and the Rules of Court, one
of which is oath or a rmation. EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS REQUISITE.
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ff
ffi
fi
ffi
ff
ff
ffi
ffi
 C. Oath or A rmation The examination of the complainant and the witnesses must be
under oath or a rmation. This requirement ensures the veracity of the statements
made before the judge. [Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution]

8. For a search warrant to be valid, it must comply with the following four (4)
essential requisites, as mandated by the Constitution and the Rules of Court, one
of which is Particularity of Description. DEFINE AND EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE
OF Particularity of the Place to be Searched.

9. For a search warrant to be valid, it must comply with the following four (4)
essential requisites, as mandated by the Constitution and the Rules of Court, one
of which is Particularity of Description. DEFINE AND EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE
OF Particularity of the Things to be Seized.

D. Particularity of Description The search warrant must particularly describe the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. Particularity of the Place to be Searched: The description of the place to be
searched must be speci c enough to enable the peace o cer to locate the
place without di culty and to prevent him from searching other places. [G.R.
No. 182239. April 21, 2014]
2. Particularity of the Things to be Seized: The articles to be seized must be
described with such particularity as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. This
prevents the seizure of unauthorized items and limits the discretion of the
o cers executing the warrant. [G.R. No. 182239. April 21, 2014] The items that
may be seized are:
◦ Subject of the o ense;
◦ Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the o ense; or
◦ Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an o ense.
[Rule 126, Section 3 of the Rules of Court]

10. DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEARCH WARRANT AND WARRANT OF ARREST.

VI. DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEARCH WARRANT AND WARRANT OF ARREST

While both are judicial processes, a search warrant is issued for the purpose of
searching for and seizing personal property, while a warrant of arrest is issued for the
purpose of taking a person into custody to answer for an o ense. Both require
probable cause determined personally by a judge.

11. WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES FOR ILLEGALLY ISSUED OR EXECUTED SEARCH
WARRANTS?

A. Motion to Quash Search Warrant A motion to quash a search warrant may be led
on grounds such as:

1. Lack of probable cause.

2. Lack of personal examination by the judge.
3. Lack of particularity in the description of the place to be searched or the things
to be seized.
4. The warrant was issued for more than one o ense.
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ff
fi
ff
ffi
ff
ff
ff
fi
 5. The warrant was served beyond the ten-day period.
6. The search was conducted in violation of the rules (e.g., without witnesses).

B. Exclusionary Rule Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right against

unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. This is known as the "exclusionary rule" or the "fruit of the poisonous tree"
doctrine. [Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution] This rule is a
deterrent to illegal police conduct and ensures that the constitutional right is not
rendered meaningless. [G.R. No. 182239. April 21, 2014]

12. Exclusionary Rule vis-a-vis Search and Seizure. DEFINE AND EXPLAIN.

13. What is the e ect of Exclusionary Rule to police conduct? EXPLAIN.

This rule is a deterrent to illegal police conduct and ensures that the constitutional
right is not rendered meaningless. [G.R. No. 182239. April 21, 2014]

14. What is the procedure for the issuance of a search warrant is outlined in Rule 126
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?

A. Application for Search Warrant A search warrant may be applied for by a peace
o cer or any other person. The application must be in writing and under oath. [Rule
126, Section 4 of the Rules of Court]

B. Examination of Applicant and Witnesses The judge must personally examine, under
oath or a rmation, the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. The examination
must be in the form of searching questions and answers, and the judge must take
down their depositions in writing. [Rule 126, Section 5 of the Rules of Court]

C. Issuance of Search Warrant If the judge is satis ed that there is probable cause, he
shall issue the search warrant. The warrant must be signed by the judge and must
state the date and place of its issuance. It must also specify the period within which it
must be served, which shall not be more than ten (10) days from its date. [Rule 126,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court]

15. WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR THE EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT?

IV. EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT

A. Time of Search The search must be made in the presence of the lawful occupant of
the place searched or any member of his family, or in the absence of the latter, two
witnesses of su cient age and discretion residing in the same locality. [Rule 126,
Section 8 of the Rules of Court] It must be served within ten (10) days from its date.
After the expiration of this period, it shall be void. [Rule 126, Section 9 of the Rules of
Court]

B. Manner of Search The o cer must give notice of his purpose and authority before
breaking into any building or any part thereof to execute the warrant. However, he may
break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or
ffi
ffi
ff
ffi
ffi
fi
anything therein to execute the warrant or to liberate himself or any person lawfully
aiding him when refused admittance after giving notice of his purpose and authority.
[Rule 126, Section 7 of the Rules of Court]

C. Receipt for the Property Seized The o cer seizing property under the warrant must
issue a detailed receipt of the property seized to the lawful occupant of the premises in
whose presence the search was made, or in the absence of such occupant, must leave
a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property in the presence of at least
two witnesses of su cient age and discretion residing in the same locality. [Rule 126,
Section 10 of the Rules of Court]

D. Return of Search Warrant The o cer must forthwith deliver the property seized to
the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly veri ed
under oath. [Rule 126, Section 11 of the Rules of Court]

16. WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES FOR ILLEGALLY ISSUED OR EXECUTED SEARCH
WARRANTS?

V. REMEDIES FOR ILLEGALLY ISSUED OR EXECUTED SEARCH WARRANTS

A. Motion to Quash Search Warrant A motion to quash a search warrant may be led
on grounds such as:

1. Lack of probable cause.

2. Lack of personal examination by the judge.
3. Lack of particularity in the description of the place to be searched or the things
to be seized.
4. The warrant was issued for more than one o ense.
5. The warrant was served beyond the ten-day period.
6. The search was conducted in violation of the rules (e.g., without witnesses).

17. DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE and PURPOSE OF EVIDENCE.

18. WHAT ARE THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING EVIDENCE?

19. Evidence can be classi ed into various types based on its nature and form.
IDENTIFY ONE AND EXPLAIN.

20. Evidence can be classi ed into various types based on its nature and form.
IDENTIFY ONE AND EXPLAIN.

21. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. EXPLAIN.

22. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE. EXPLAIN.

I. DEFINITION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE

Evidence is de ned as the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. [Rule 128, Section 1 of the
Rules of Court] Its purpose is to establish the truth of a disputed fact in a court of law.

The general principles governing evidence are:

fi
ffi
fi
fi
ffi
ffi
ff
fi
fi
 • Admissibility: For evidence to be considered by the court, it must be admissible.
Admissibility has two aspects:
◦ Relevance: Evidence is relevant when it has a logical connection to the
issue in question. It must tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue. [Rule
128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court]
◦ Competence: Evidence is competent if it is not excluded by the
Constitution, the law, or the Rules of Court. [Rule 128, Section 2 of the
Rules of Court] This means that even if evidence is relevant, it may still be
inadmissible if it falls under an exclusionary rule (e.g., illegally obtained
evidence, privileged communication, hearsay).
• Burden of Proof (Onus Probandi): This refers to the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense
by the amount of evidence required by law. [Rule 131, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court] The burden of proof generally rests upon the party who alleges the
a rmative of an issue.
• Quantum of Proof: This refers to the degree of proof required to establish a fact
in a judicial proceeding.
◦ Preponderance of Evidence: In civil cases, the party having the burden of
proof must establish his or her case by a preponderance of evidence.
This means the evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is superior to
that of the other. [Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court]
◦ Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: In criminal cases, the prosecution must
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This does not
mean absolute certainty, but moral certainty—that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. [Rule 133, Section 2 of the
Rules of Court]
◦ Clear and Convincing Evidence: This standard is required in certain civil
cases, such as those involving fraud or the validity of a will. It is a higher
standard than preponderance of evidence but lower than proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
◦ Substantial Evidence: This standard is typically applied in administrative
and labor cases, meaning such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

II. KINDS OF EVIDENCE

Evidence can be classi ed into various types based on its nature and form:

• Object (Real) Evidence: These are objects that are directly addressed to the
senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined, or viewed by the court. [Rule 130, Section 1 of the Rules
of Court] Examples include weapons, documents, or the scene of a crime.
• Documentary Evidence: This consists of writings or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, gures, symbols, or other modes of written expression
o ered as proof of their contents. [Rule 130, Section 2 of the Rules of Court]
◦ Original Document Rule (Best Evidence Rule): When the subject of inquiry
is the content of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself. [Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court]
There are exceptions to this rule, such as when the original has been lost
or destroyed, or is in the custody of the adverse party.
◦ Parol Evidence Rule: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced
to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
[Rule 130, Section 9 of the Rules of Court] This rule prevents the
ffi
ff
fi
fi
 introduction of extrinsic evidence to contradict, vary, or add to the terms
of a written agreement.
• Testimonial Evidence: This is evidence elicited from the oral declarations of a
witness under oath or a rmation in court.
◦ Quali cations of Witnesses: All persons who can perceive and perceiving
can make known their perception to others may be witnesses. [Rule 130,
Section 20 of the Rules of Court] Certain disquali cations exist, such as
those based on mental incapacity, immaturity, or privileged
communication.
◦ Credibility of Witnesses: The court assesses the credibility of witnesses
based on their demeanor, consistency of testimony, and corroborating
evidence.
◦ Hearsay Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she
knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from
his or her own perception. [Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court]
Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible because it lacks the reliability
of direct testimony and the opportunity for cross-examination.
◦ Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule: The Rules of Court provide several
exceptions where hearsay evidence may be admitted due to their
inherent reliability or necessity, such as dying declarations, declarations
against interest, pedigree, common reputation, and part of the res gestae.
[Rule 130, Sections 38-47 of the Rules of Court]
• Circumstantial Evidence: This is evidence that proves a fact in issue indirectly by
establishing other facts from which the existence of the fact in issue can be
inferred. In criminal cases, conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires:
(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [Rule 133, Section 4 of the
Rules of Court]
• Prima Facie Evidence: Evidence that, standing alone, is su cient to establish a
fact or a case unless disproved by other evidence.
• Conclusive Evidence: Evidence that the law does not allow to be contradicted.
• Corroborative Evidence: Additional evidence of a di erent kind and character
tending to prove the same point.
• Cumulative Evidence: Additional evidence of the same kind and character as
that already given and tending to prove the same point.
III. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
The admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence.

• Relevance: As stated in Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, evidence

must be relevant to the issue. The court determines relevance by considering
whether the evidence has a logical tendency to establish or disestablish a fact in
issue.
• Competence: Evidence must not be excluded by law or the Constitution.
Examples of incompetent evidence include:
◦ Illegally Obtained Evidence: Evidence obtained in violation of
constitutional rights, such as the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures (Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution) or the
right against self-incrimination (Article III, Section 17 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution), is generally inadmissible under the "fruit of the
poisonous tree" doctrine.
◦ Privileged Communications: Certain communications are protected from
disclosure, such as those between husband and wife, attorney and client,
doctor and patient, priest and penitent, and public o cers regarding
o cial communications. [Rule 130, Sections 21-24 of the Rules of Court]
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
ff
ffi
ffi
 ◦ O er of Compromise: An o er of compromise in civil cases is not an
admission of liability and is not admissible in evidence against the o eror.
In criminal cases, an o er of compromise by the accused may be
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt, except in quasi-
o enses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised. [Rule 130, Section 27 of the Rules of Court]
IV. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
After evidence is admitted, the court evaluates its weight and su ciency to determine
whether the required quantum of proof has been met. The court is not bound by any
particular type of evidence and considers all evidence presented. The Rules of Court
provide guidelines for the appreciation of evidence, such as the court's assessment of
the credibility of witnesses, the probative value of documents, and the strength of
circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the determination of the weight and
su ciency of evidence rests primarily with the trial court, which has the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of witnesses. For instance, in People v. Lumikid, the Supreme
Court reiterated that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is
accorded great weight and even nality on appeal, unless it is shown that it overlooked
certain facts or circumstances of weight and in uence. [G.R. No. 258417. January 29,
2024]

23. EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN PHILIPPINE LAW and

DISTINGUISH IT FROM APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The concept of original jurisdiction in Philippine law refers to the power of a court or
tribunal to hear and decide a case for the rst time, as distinguished from appellate
jurisdiction, which involves the power to review decisions of lower courts. The scope of
original jurisdiction is de ned by the Constitution and various statutes, allocating
speci c types of cases to di erent judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

I. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction over the following matters:

• Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, and Habeas

Corpus: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for these
extraordinary writs. [Article VIII, Section 5(1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution]
• Cases A ecting Ambassadors, Other Public Ministers, and Consuls: These
cases fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [Article
VIII, Section 5(1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution]
• Cases Involving the Constitutionality of Laws and Treaties: The Supreme Court
has original jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation. [Article VIII, Section
5(2)(a) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution]
• Cases Where Jurisdiction of Lower Courts is in Issue: All cases in which the
jurisdiction of any lower court is drawn into question are within the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [Article VIII, Section 5(2)(b) of the 1987
Philippine Constitution]
• Disciplinary Cases Against Judges of Lower Courts: The Supreme Court has
exclusive original jurisdiction over administrative cases involving the discipline of
judges of lower courts. [Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution]
II. Court of Appeals
ff
ff
ffi
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
fl
ffi
ff
 The Court of Appeals exercises original jurisdiction over the following:

• Actions for Annulment of Judgments of Regional Trial Courts: The Court of

Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of Regional Trial Courts. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 9(2)]
• Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus: The Court of Appeals has
original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
against the Regional Trial Courts, Civil Service Commission, Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, National Labor Relations
Commission, and other quasi-judicial agencies. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
Section 9(1)]
• Petitions for Habeas Corpus, Amparo, and Habeas Data: The Court of Appeals
has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over petitions for
habeas corpus, and exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the writs of
amparo and habeas data. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 9(1); A.M. No.
07-9-12-SC, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo; A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, The Rule on
the Writ of Habeas Data]
III. Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan, a special court, exercises original jurisdiction over:

• Violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Related O enses: It has
exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving violations of Republic Act No.
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of
Ill-Gotten Wealth), and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code
(Bribery), where the accused are public o cials occupying positions classi ed
as Grade '27' and higher under the Compensation and Position Classi cation
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), and other speci c public o cials, including
members of Congress, justices of the Court of Appeals and lower courts, and
o cers of government-owned or controlled corporations. [Presidential Decree
No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 7975 and Republic Act No. 8249]
• Civil and Criminal Cases Related to Ill-Gotten Wealth: It also has exclusive
original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases led pursuant to and in
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A, issued in 1986, which
pertain to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. [Presidential Decree No. 1606, as
amended]

IV. Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)

Regional Trial Courts exercise general original jurisdiction over a wide range of cases,
including:

• Civil Actions Where Subject is Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation: These include

actions for speci c performance, rescission of contracts, annulment of
judgment, and similar cases. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 19(1)]
• Actions Involving Title to, or Possession of, Real Property: Where the assessed
value of the property exceeds P20,000.00 (or P50,000.00 in Metro Manila),
except actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer. [Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, Section 19(2), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691]
• Actions in Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction: Where the demand or claim
exceeds P300,000.00 (or P400,000.00 in Metro Manila). [Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, Section 19(3), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691]
• Matters of Probate: Both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds P300,000.00 (or P400,000.00 in Metro Manila). [Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Section 19(4), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691]
• Actions Involving the Contract of Marriage and Marital Relations: This includes
annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage, legal separation, and
other family-related cases, now primarily handled by designated Family Courts.
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
ffi
ff
fi
fi
 [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 19(5); Republic Act No. 8369, The Family
Courts Act of 1997]
• Cases Not Within Exclusive Jurisdiction of Other Bodies: All cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 19(6)]
• Issuance of Extraordinary Writs: Cases for the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction which may
be enforced in any part of their respective regions. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
Section 21(1)]
• Criminal Cases: Where the penalty provided by law exceeds six (6) years
imprisonment, irrespective of the amount of ne, and those punishable by ne
exceeding P4,000.00. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 20, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691]
• Commercial Cases: Designated RTCs have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over intra-corporate disputes, intellectual property rights violations, and other
commercial cases. [Republic Act No. 8799, The Securities Regulation Code;
Republic Act No. 8293, as amended, The Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines]
V. First Level Courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
These courts, collectively known as rst level courts, exercise original jurisdiction over:

•Civil Actions and Probate Proceedings (Lower Value): Where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
P300,000.00 (or P400,000.00 in Metro Manila), exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs. [Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Section 33(1), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691]
• Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer Cases: Regardless of the amount of
damages or unpaid rentals sought. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 33(2)]
• Civil Actions Involving Title to, or Possession of, Real Property (Lower Value):
Where the assessed value of the property does not exceed P20,000.00 (or
P50,000.00 in Metro Manila). [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 33(3), as
amended by Republic Act No. 7691]
• Criminal Cases (Lower Penalty): Where the penalty provided by law does not
exceed six (6) years imprisonment, irrespective of the amount of ne, and those
punishable by ne not exceeding P4,000.00. [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section
32, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691]
• Violations of City or Municipal Ordinances: [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section
32(2)]
• Tra c Violations: [Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 32(3)]
• Violations of the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22): [Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 32(4)]
VI. Shari'a Courts
Shari'a District Courts and Shari'a Circuit Courts have original jurisdiction over cases
involving personal status, marriage, divorce, and property relations among Muslims, as
de ned by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines. [Presidential Decree
No. 1083]

VII. Quasi-Judicial Bodies

Various quasi-judicial bodies also exercise original jurisdiction over speci c matters
within their specialized elds:

• Commission on Elections (COMELEC): Exercises exclusive original jurisdiction

over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and quali cations of all
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 elective regional, provincial, and city o cials. [Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the
1987 Philippine Constitution]
• Civil Service Commission (CSC): Has original jurisdiction over disciplinary cases
involving civil service employees. [Presidential Decree No. 807, as amended,
The Civil Service Law]
• National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Exercises original jurisdiction
over cases involving unfair labor practices, termination disputes, money claims
arising from employer-employee relations, and other labor disputes. [Article 224
of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as renumbered by Republic Act No. 10741]
• O ce of the Ombudsman: Has original jurisdiction over complaints led against
public o cials and employees, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations, for acts or omissions committed in the exercise or
performance of their o cial functions. [Article XI, Section 13(1) of the 1987
Philippine Constitution; Republic Act No. 6770, The Ombudsman Act of 1989]
• Court of Tax Appeals (CTA): Exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over cases
involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, customs
duties, and other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code and
the Tari and Customs Code. [Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic
Act No. 9282]

24. Regional Trial Courts exercise general original jurisdiction over a wide range of
cases, including what kind of Criminal Cases.

25. First Level Courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) exercise original jurisdiction
over Criminal Cases, what kind?

The distinction between jurisdiction and venue is fundamental in Philippine remedial

law, each serving a distinct purpose in the administration of justice. While often
confused, they refer to di erent concepts with varying legal implications.

I. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is de ned as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a
case. It is the court's authority to act on the matter before it.

A. Nature and Source Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, conferred by the

Constitution or by statute. It cannot be acquired through a waiver, enlarged by the
omission of the parties, or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. The court's
jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the relevant allegations in the
complaint, the law in e ect when the action is led, and the character of the relief
sought.

B. Types of Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter: This refers to the court's power to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question
belong. It is conferred by law and cannot be waived or stipulated by the parties.
If a court hears, tries, and decides an action in which it has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter, all its proceedings, including the judgment rendered, are
void. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived and
may be brought at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. When a case
is led with a court that has no jurisdiction over the action, the court shall motu
proprio dismiss the case.
ffi
fi
ff
ffi
fi
ffi
ff
ff
ffi
fi
fi
 2.
Jurisdiction over the Person: This is acquired by the court over the plainti by
the ling of the complaint, and over the defendant either by the service of
summons or by the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. Unlike
jurisdiction over the subject matter, jurisdiction over the person can be waived.
3. Jurisdiction over the Res (or Property): This is acquired by the court through the
seizure of the property under legal process, or in consequence of the institution
of legal proceedings, or where the purpose of the action is to control the
disposition of the property.
4. Territorial Jurisdiction: This refers to the geographical area within which a court
has the power to hear and decide cases. While related to venue, it is a
component of jurisdiction in criminal cases.
II. Venue
Venue is the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding
should be brought. It is concerned with the locality where a case may be heard.

A. Nature and Source Venue is a matter of procedural law. It is governed by the Rules
of Court, speci cally Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The rules on venue are
intended to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the
courts.

B. Waivability Unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter, venue is waivable. A party's
objections to venue must be brought at the earliest opportunity, either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer; otherwise, the objection shall be deemed waived. When the
venue of a civil action is improperly laid, the court cannot motu proprio dismiss the
case, as wrong venue is merely a procedural in rmity, not a jurisdictional impediment.
C. Rules on Venue (Civil Actions) Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides the general rules
on venue for civil actions:

1. Real Actions: Actions a ecting title to or possession of real property, or interest

therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction
over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions are brought in the municipality or city where
the property is situated.
2. Personal Actions: All other actions may be commenced and tried where the
plainti or any of the principal plainti s resides, or where the defendant or any of
the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant
where he may be found, at the election of the plainti .
3. Actions Against Nonresidents: If any of the defendants does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, and the action a ects the personal status of the
plainti , or any property of said defendant located in the Philippines, the action
may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plainti
resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
4. Venue by Agreement: By written agreement of the parties, the venue of an action
may be changed or transferred from one province to another, provided the court
has jurisdiction to try the action by reason of its nature or the amount involved.

III. Key Distinctions Between Jurisdiction and Venue

The Supreme Court has consistently highlighted the fundamental di erences between
jurisdiction and venue. As summarized in various cases, including Radiowealth Finance
Company, Inc. v. Pineda, et al., City of Lapu-Lapu v. Phil. Economic Zone Authority,
and Nocum v. Tan, citing Florenz D. Regalado:
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff