REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY

PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES

A. Background of the Procedure
Purpose
To achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of
the cases referred to herein, the Court resolved to promulgate the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts in Criminal Cases
Sec. 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980 defines the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. It provides that:
Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
shall exercise:
(1)Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or
municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction; and
(2)Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (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: Provided, however, That in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence they
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by
R.A, No. 7691)
Criminal Cases Covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure
The rule shall govern the summary procedure in the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the
following cases falling within their jurisdiction
(1)

Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

(2)

Violations of the rental law;

(3)

Violations of municipal or city ordinances;

(4)
All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by
law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six
months, or a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of
other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil
liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule
shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00)(Section 1).

B. Actual Observation of the Procedure

We observed the proceedings in Branch 29 of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
According to the court calendar, there were 5 criminal cases that were set for hearing.
Unfortunately, 3 of the 5 cases were reset because the accused failed to attend the
hearings.
The hearing began with the ecumenical prayer for the courts.
Almighty God, we stand in Your holy presence as our Supreme
Judge. We humbly beseech You to bless and inspire us so that what
we think, say, and do will be in accordance with Your will. Enlighten
our minds, strengthen our spirit and fill our hearts with fraternal
love, wisdom and understanding, so that w can be effective
channels of truth, justice, and peace. In your proceedings today,
guide us in the path of righteousness for the fulfillment of Your
greater glory. Amen.
Case No. 389385-SA
People of the Philippines v. Igmidio Batica, Jr y Marcha
Grave Threats
The witness was placed under oath upon taking the stand.
Counsel for the accused presented the judicial affidavit of the
witness and it was made part of her testimony. Thereafter, the
prosecutor conducted the cross examination in open court.
This was very interesting for me since this was my first time
watching the judicial affidavit in action. According to Sec. 9 of A.M.
No. 12-8-8-SC, the Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to criminal actions
in three instances:
(1)Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed
six years;

(2)Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits,

irrespective of the penalty involved; or
(3)With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the
penalties involved are.
Compliance with this rule is not a matter of discretion of the parties. According to
Sec. 10, the effects of non-compliance are:
(1)A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and
exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their
submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late
submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason,
would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the
defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more
than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
(2)The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails
to appear at the scheduled hearing of the case as required.
Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice
shall be deemed to have waived his client's right to confront by
cross-examination the witnesses there present.
(3)The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do
not conform to the content requirements of Section 3 and the
attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the
compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial
provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly
prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that public or
private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission
pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00,
at the discretion of the court.
Case No. 462050-CR
People of the Philippines v. Josefina Cortez
Slight Physical Injuries
In the case for slight physical injuries, the court first disposed
of the application for hold departure order. The judge noted that the
application was faulty for three reasons:
(1)She cannot issue a hold departure order as the Metropolitan Trial
Court does not have the power to issue it.
(2)The accused enjoys the freedom to travel outside the country.
This is a right guaranteed under the Constitution and such right

cannot be impinged simply because the accused is under trial for

slight physical injuries.
(3)The application was signed and prepared by a lawyer who did
not enter his appearance. Consequently, the court can treat the
application as a mere scrap of paper as the court is not bound to
recognize a lawyer who has not formally entered his appearance.
The judge entertained doubts as to whether the person who
prepared it is even a lawyer, considering that the person who
prepared it seems to be unfamiliar with basic procedural rules.
This is consistent with the Supreme Courts pronouncement in
the case of Hold Departure Order issued by Judge Felipe M. Abalos,
MTCC- Branch1, A.M. No. 99-9-141-MTCC November 25, 1999. Said
the Court, Considering that only the RTC is mentioned in SC Circular
39-97 dated June 19, 1997 and by applying the rule on legal
hermeneutics of express mention implied exclusion, courts lower
than the RTC such as the MeTC, MTC, MTCC and MCTC has no
authority to issue hold departure orders in criminal cases.
After that, the case was reset because the accused, Josefina
Cortez, was not present for the initial presentation of evidence by
the defense.
Case No. 467312-13-CR
People of the Philippines v. PO3 Modesto Bornel y Londonio , PO3 Melchor
Carino y Bancolita and PO2 Enrique Miranda y Cruz
The last case on the docket is a consolidated criminal case for
Violation of Domicile and Grave Threats. During the hearing, the
court was informed that the complainants Peter and Maribel Ganton
are charged for a similar offense with another branch of MeTCManila.
After the hearing, the court decided to conduct mediation
between one of the accused, and the complainants. Based on their
conversation, it seems that the Melchor and Peter are siblings. They
are living in a duplex owned by their mother. Spouses Maribel and
Peter are living in one apartment while Melchor and the mother are
living in the other.
Sometime last year, the relationship between the mother and
Peter soured and the mother wanted Peter to leave. That strained
their relationship further to the point where things were the police
had to intervene. They attempted mediation and came to an
agreement that the mother would give Peter 3,000 pesos for his
moving expenses and monthly support if he agrees to leave.

Peter changed his mind and decided to stay, in violation of

their agreement during the mediation. This escalated things further
to the point where the police had to intervene again. Hence, the
present case for Violation of Domicile and Grave Threats.
The judge, off the record, recommended the parties to settle
the case amicably. She pointed out that the court was powerless to
restore their cordial relations. She can only pass judgment on the
criminal case and the worst scenario is that they would all be forced
to live together in prison.