Week 2 Coverage Table
The table below mirrors the coverage sheet's assigned cases for Week 2 and links each item to its digest page. Entries marked supra re-assign a case already listed earlier in the week under a later subtopic; they point at the same digest.
Class. records how the case actually stands to the subtopic it was assigned under — DIRECT (the Court squarely applies the doctrine), ANALOGOUS (it decides the point under a different provision or doctrine), REJECTED (the Court found the doctrine not established), INCIDENTAL (the doctrine is mentioned but the disposition rests elsewhere). Reciting a REJECTED case as if it were DIRECT inverts the holding.
| # | Assigned Case | Topic/Subtopic | Class. | Digest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People vs. Mariano, G.R. No. L-40527, June 30, 1976 | I — Criminal Jurisdiction Defined | DIRECT | |
| 2 | Guevara vs. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989 | III.a — Elements of Criminal Jurisdiction: Penalty attached | DIRECT | |
| 3 | People vs. Buissan, G.R. No. L-54419, July 15, 1981 | III.a — Elements of Criminal Jurisdiction: Penalty attached | DIRECT | |
| 4 | Velunta vs. Chief of Phil. Constabulary, G.R. No. 71855, January 20, 1988 | IV.a — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over subject matter | DIRECT | |
| 5 | De la Cruz vs. Moya, G.R. No. L-65192, April 27, 1988 | IV.a — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over subject matter | DIRECT | |
| 6 | Bilag vs. Ay-Ay, G.R. No. 189950*, April 24, 2017 | IV.a — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over subject matter | ANALOGOUS | |
| 7 | Valdapeñas vs. People, G.R. No. L-20687, April 30, 1966 | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | DIRECT | |
| 8 | Antiporda vs. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 133289, December 23, 1999 | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | DIRECT | |
| 9 | Gomez vs. People, G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020 | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | DIRECT | |
| 10 | Jimenez vs. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012 | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | DIRECT | |
| 11 | Miranda vs. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006 | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | DIRECT | |
| 12 | Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009 | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | ANALOGOUS | |
| 13 | Cojuangco Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134307, December 21, 1998 | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | DIRECT | |
| 14 | Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 15 | Pactolin vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161455, May 20, 2008 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 16 | People vs. Luis J. Morales, G.R. No. 166355, May 30, 2011 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | REJECTED | |
| 17 | Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24, September 11, 2013 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 18 | PCGG vs. Dumayas, G.R. No. 209447, August 11, 2015 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | ANALOGOUS | |
| 19 | Inding vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143047, July 14, 2004 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 20 | Geduspan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158187, February 11, 2005 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 21 | People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169004, September 15, 2010 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 22 | Montilla vs. Hilario, G.R. No. L-4922, September 24, 1951 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | ANALOGOUS | |
| 23 | Cunanan vs. Arceo, G.R. No. 116615, March 1, 1995 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 24 | Sanchez vs. Demetriou, G.R. Nos. 111771-77, November 9, 1993 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | REJECTED | |
| 25 | Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146646-49, March 11, 2005 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 26 | Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 161784-86, April 26, 2005 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 27 | Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136806, August 22, 2000 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT | |
| 28 | De Lima vs. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | REJECTED | |
| 29 | Uyboco vs. People, G.R. No. 211703, December 10, 2014 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | INCIDENTAL | |
| 30 | People vs. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014 | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | DIRECT |
Recitation Map
One line per digested case — what it is assigned for, and how it came out.
| Case | What it is for | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Mariano | I — Criminal Jurisdiction Defined | Order of March 14, 1975 SET ASIDE; respondent Judge directed to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. SM-649 without further delay |
| Guevara v. Almodovar | III.a — Elements of Criminal Jurisdiction: Penalty attached | Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit; Temporary Restraining Order effective 17 September 1986 LIFTED; case REMANDED to the lower court for trial on the merits; no costs |
| People v. Buissan | III.a — Elements of Criminal Jurisdiction: Penalty attached | Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus GRANTED; case ordered returned from the City Court of Dapitan to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte for trial on the merits |
| Velunta v. Chief of Phil. Constabulary | IV.a — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over subject matter | Petition for prohibition DISMISSED for lack of merit |
| De la Cruz v. Moya | IV.a — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over subject matter | Petition GRANTED; proceedings in Criminal Case No. 40080 declared null and void, without prejudice to the filing of another action in the proper forum |
| Bilag v. Ay-Ay | IV.a — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over subject matter | Petition GRANTED; CA Decision and Resolution REVERSED and SET ASIDE; Civil Case No. 5881-R DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 61 |
| Valdapeñas v. People | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner |
| Antiporda v. Garchitorena | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | Petition for certiorari and prohibition DISMISSED |
| Gomez v. People | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | Petition for Review on Certiorari DENIED; October 9, 2014 CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 130290 AFFIRMED; RTC of Makati City, Branch 57 ORDERED to resume proceedings |
| Jimenez v. Sorongon | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | Appeal DENIED; CA Resolutions dated November 23, 2006 and June 28, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 96584 AFFIRMED; costs against petitioner |
| Miranda v. Tuliao | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | Petition DENIED; CA Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED with modification transferring Criminal Cases Nos. 36-3523 and 36-3524 to the RTC of the City of Manila; Judge Anghad directed to issue warrants of arrest; TRO of 4 August 2003 LIFTED; costs against petitioners |
| Garcia v. Sandiganbayan | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | Petitions for certiorari and mandamus PARTIALLY GRANTED; the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division has not acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and her three children; proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 0193 and 0196 as to them declared VOID for lack of jurisdiction over their persons; no costs |
| Cojuangco Jr. v. Sandiganbayan | IV.c — Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused | Petition DISMISSED insofar as the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 22018 is concerned; Sandiganbayan ordered to resolve pending motions with utmost dispatch; the February 20, 1995 travel ban LIFTED for three (3) months from finality; no costs |
| Serana v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for certiorari DENIED for lack of merit |
| Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition DENIED; Sandiganbayan Decision of November 12, 2003 in Criminal Case No. 25665 and Resolution of January 7, 2004 AFFIRMED in their entirety; Decision treated as an administrative complaint under Rule 139-B and referred to the IBP; costs against petitioner |
| People v. Luis J. Morales | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for review on certiorari DISMISSED for lack of merit; Sandiganbayan Resolution of June 15, 2004 in Criminal Case No. 27431 AFFIRMED; no costs |
| Disini v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for certiorari DISMISSED; Sandiganbayan (First Division) Resolutions of January 17, 2005 and August 10, 2005 in Criminal Case Nos. 28001 and 28002 AFFIRMED; petitioner directed to pay the costs of suit |
| PCGG v. Dumayas | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petitions GRANTED; RTC Makati City Branch 59 Orders of April 29, 2013 and June 28, 2013 in Civil Case No. 12-1251, Omnibus Order of May 15, 2013 and Order of December 4, 2013 ANNULLED and SET ASIDE; the petitions for declaratory relief in Civil Case Nos. 12-1251 and 12-1252 DISMISSED; no costs |
| Inding v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for certiorari DISMISSED; Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated September 23, 1999 and April 25, 2000 AFFIRMED; no costs |
| Geduspan v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for certiorari DISMISSED for lack of merit; costs against petitioner |
| People v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition GRANTED; Sandiganbayan (Third Division) Resolution of July 20, 2005 NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE; case REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings |
| Montilla v. Hilario | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for certiorari DENIED, without costs |
| Cunanan v. Arceo | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for Certiorari DISMISSED for lack of merit; Orders of the respondent RTC Judges dated 23 May, 14 July and 18 August 1994 AFFIRMED |
| Sanchez v. Demetriou | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition DISMISSED; respondent judge DIRECTED to continue with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 101141 to 101147 and to decide them with deliberate dispatch |
| Esteban v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for certiorari DISMISSED; Sandiganbayan Resolution of December 18, 2000 and Order of January 11, 2001 in Criminal Cases Nos. 24703-04 AFFIRMED; costs against petitioner |
| Barriga v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for certiorari DENIED for lack of merit; costs against petitioner |
| Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for certiorari DISMISSED |
| De Lima v. Guerrero | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition for prohibition and certiorari DISMISSED for lack of merit; the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 ordered to proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case No. 17-165 |
| Uyboco v. People | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition DENIED; Sandiganbayan Decision of January 9, 2014 and Resolution of March 14, 2014 in Criminal Case No. 24461 AFFIRMED |
| People v. Go | V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan | Petition GRANTED; Sandiganbayan Resolution of June 2, 2005 granting the Motion to Quash REVERSED and SET ASIDE; Sandiganbayan DIRECTED to proceed with deliberate dispatch in Criminal Case No. 28090 |
Topic Notes
Explanatory notes carried in the coverage sheet for the outline items themselves, as distinct from the assigned cases.
a. Where to file: (i) Original, (ii) Appellate; b. How many courts have jurisdiction: (i) Exclusive, (ii) Concurrent
Jurisdiction can be classified along two axes. The first is where an action may be filed: original jurisdiction (a court hearing the case for the first time) versus appellate jurisdiction (a court reviewing another court's decision). The second is how many courts may validly take cognizance: exclusive jurisdiction (only one court or class of court may hear it) versus concurrent jurisdiction (two or more courts could validly acquire it, subject to the rule that whichever court first acquires jurisdiction excludes the others). Recognizing which classification applies tells you not just where to file, but whether a case wrongly filed can simply be transferred or must instead be dismissed outright for want of jurisdiction.
b. Nature of offense charged; c. Territorial jurisdiction
Beyond penalty, jurisdiction also turns on the nature of the offense as classified by law — certain offenses, like libel or specific special-law violations, are assigned by statute to particular courts regardless of penalty, overriding the ordinary penalty-based test. Territorial jurisdiction requires that the offense, or at least one of its essential ingredients, have taken place within the geographic area the court presides over. Unlike most civil actions, where venue is often just a matter of convenience that can be waived, venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional — filing in the wrong territory is a fatal defect, not a mere irregularity.
b. Jurisdiction over the territory
Territorial jurisdiction requires that the offense, or an essential element of it, have been committed within the geographic boundaries the court is authorized to serve — an RTC of one province, for example, has no authority to try an offense committed wholly within another province. This flows directly from the constitutional and statutory scheme dividing the country into judicial regions, branches, and stations, each assigned a defined territorial reach. Recognized statutory exceptions exist, however, such as Article 2 of the RPC's limited extraterritorial application, and special rules for offenses committed aboard public conveyances, vessels, or aircraft.
a. MTC, MCTC, MeTC; b. RTC; c. Family Courts
The first-level courts — MTC, MCTC, and MeTC — exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years regardless of fine, plus violations of city or municipal ordinances, subject to exceptions like libel and certain bribery offenses that go to the RTC or Sandiganbayan despite a penalty that might otherwise fall within first-level jurisdiction. The RTC has residual, catch-all jurisdiction over all other criminal cases not falling within any other court's exclusive jurisdiction, plus special jurisdiction over written defamation, dangerous drugs, and IP violations. Family Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction whenever an accused is a minor, and over R.A. 9262 and related child-welfare prosecutions.