1. PEOPLE v. MARIANO Facts: The office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed an Information accusing Mariano of estafa.

Mariano was the Liaison Officer of Mayor Nolasco and is authorized to receive and be receipted for US excess property of USAID/NEC for the use and benefit of the municipality. The property received was electric cables and cable powers amounting to P4,797.35 which he had a duty to deliver to the Mayor. However he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of confidence and deceit, misappropriates, misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the items. Mariano filed a motion to quash the Information claiming that the court had no jurisdiction. He claimed that the items which were the subject matter of the Information against him were the same items for which Mayor Nolasco was indicted by the Military Commission under a charge of malversation and found guilty. He claimed that inasmuch as the case against Mayor Nolasco has already been decided by the Military Tribunal, the CFI of Bulacan had lost jurisdiction over him. Respondent judge granted the motion to quash stating that since the Military Commission had already taken cognizance of the malversation case involving the same subject matter in its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court, the case for estafa has already been heard and decided. Issue: Whether or not civil courts and military commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction o ver es taf a a nd c om m itt ed b y a c i v i l ia n He ld: T h er e is n o c on c ur r en t j ur is d ic t io n. Ratio: The question of jurisdiction of respondent CFI is to be resolved on the basis of the law or statute providing for or defining its jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1948 in Section 44 (f) provides the CFI shall have or i gi n a l j ur is d ic ti on in al l c r im in a l c a s es i n wh ic h t he penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months or fine of more than 2 0 0 p es os . Es taf a f al ls u n der t he or ig i n al j ur is d ic t io n of CFI . Jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. A t t h e t im e t h e c rim in a l c as e was f i l e d on D ec 18 , 19 7 4, the law in force vesting jurisdiction upon said court is the Judiciary Act of 1948. General Order No. 49 dated Oct 4, 1974, redefines the jurisdiction of military tribunals over certain offenses, and estafa and malversation are not enumerated therein. Therefore, the Military Commission is not vested with jurisdiction over the crime of estafa. We do not have here a situation involving two tribunals with concurrent jurisdiction over a particular crime so as to apply the rule that whoever takes cognizance first acquires jurisdiction exclusive of the other. The Military Commission is without power or authority to hear and determine the crime of estafa against Mariano hence there is no concurrent jurisdiction to speak of. Estafa falls within the sole exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. Doctrines: Jurisdiction basic foundation of judicial proceedings. The word jurisdiction is derived from two Latin words juris and dico I speak by the law which means fundamentally the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies. Jurisdiction acquired by court over subject matter of controversy retained up to the end of litigation. The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of instituting the action and not at the time of the commission of the crime.

2. UNITED STATES v. JUEVES Facts: On several instances several men entered towns, all within the jurisdiction of Ambos Camarines (which at the date of the commencement of the action were already part of the province of Tayabas), robbing, kidnapping and killing several persons. They were charged with the crime of brigandage and their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants counsel insists however that the court of Tayabas had no jurisdiction to try the accused for the reason that the territory where the acts complained of were committed belonged to the Province of Ambos Camarines at the time of the commission of the acts although it has been since transferred to the Province of Tayabas and that Section 3 of Act No 518 is invalid as opposed to the Philippine Bill. Issue: W/N a court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in a particular locality prior to the time such locality was included within the jurisdiction of such court Decision: the general rule is that jurisdiction of a court is determined by the (1) geographical limits of the territory over which it presides, and (2) the actions it is empowered to hear and decide. A court has inchoate right of jurisdiction over all crimes committed within its jurisdiction, which is perfected on the institution of the action. If however, it loses jurisdiction over a particular action because its territorial limits are restricted prior to the institution of the action, it also loses this inchoate right to jurisdiction in favor of the court to which the territory is transferred since it is unnecessary to prolong a courts existence indefinitely after being legally abolished. The territory where the acts complained of in the case at bar were committed having been transferred to the Province of Tayabas prior to the institution of this action, the court of the that province where the units have been transferred shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. The assumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed before jurisdiction was conferred is not a violation of the ex post facto clause. The decision was affirmed.

3. EMILIO REYES v. DIAZ Facts: The protestee is questioning whether the protestants certificate of candidacy has been duly filed. Such will eventually determine whether the court has jurisdiction over the matter. The parties are in agreement that if indeed the protestee filed his candidacy, then the court has jurisdiction over the case. Otherwise, the court will have to dismiss the case. They are therefore not questioning whether the trial court has jurisdiction according to the law. Issue: W/N the trial court has or has no authority to pass upon the validity of the ballots adjudicated to the protestant, which have not been challenged by the protestee in his counter protest. Decision: It has been held that the word jurisdiction as used in the contribution and in the statues means jurisdiction as to the subject-matter only, unless an exception arises by reason of its employment in a broader sense. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers. In order that the court may validly try and decide the case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. But in some instances, it is said that the court should also have jurisdiction over the issue, meaning thereby that the issue being tried and decided by the court within the issues raised in the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue is different from jurisdiction over the subject-matter. The latter being conferred by law and the former by the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue may be conferred by consent either express of implied of the parties. Although an issue is not duly pleaded, it may be validly be tried and decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the parties, this cannot be done when jurisdiction over subject matter is involved. Jurisdiction over the issue is an exception of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. The original question posed by the court was not answered.

4. VELUNTA v. CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY Facts: Petitioner, a member of the Integrated National Police of Tacloban, was directing traffic at around 6PM in the intersection of Burgos-Tarcela-Lucente Streets in Tacloban City when he apprehended one Romeo Lozano, a motorized tricycle driver, for a traffic violation. An altercation ensued which resulted in the death of the latter. His widow filed an administrative complaint with the NAPOLCOM, which found petitioner guilty of less grave misconduct and suspended him for six months without pay. Pending the case, Ramons widow also filed another case for homicide at the Fiscals office in Tacloban. Finding prima facie evidence, the First Assistant City Fiscal recommended that the case be referred to the Tanodbayan which endorsed the filling of the homicide case. The said case was referred to the military authorities pursuant to PD 1850. The general court Martial was convened but petitioner assailed its jurisdiction over the case alleging that EO 1040 in relation to EO 1020 transferred jurisdiction over members of the PNP to the NAPOLCOM. Issue: W/N the General Court Martial has jurisdiction over the case. Decision: Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice fore hearing and deciding cases. Courts in the Philippines have no common law jurisdiction or power, but only those expressly conferred by the Constitution and statues and those necessarily implied to make the express powers effective. It is expressly stated under EO 1012 that it is only the operation supervision and direction over all units of the Integrated National Police force stationed or assigned in the different cities and municipalities that was transferred from the Philippine Constabulary to the city or municipal government concerned. Likewise, EO 1040 transferred merely the exercise of administrative control over all units of the Integrated National Police throughout the country to the President. This is not the same as transferring of jurisdiction or authority of a court-martial to hear, try and decide a criminal proceeding against a police officer. When the case was filed in 1982, there can be no question that the respondent General Court Martial had jurisdiction. Since jurisdiction had properly been exercised from the start, it remains with the military court martial unless a law expressly divests it of the jurisdiction. It is a rule that once jurisdiction is acquired, it remains until validly transferred by the proper authority according to law. It is not intended by the legislators to repeal PD 1850, thus, the court martials jurisdiction remains.

5. UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the Philippine Navy designated to act on behalf of Captain Fernandez, the latters supervisor, on matters relating the activities of the Fiscal Control Branch. Six informations for Estafa through falsification of official documents and one information for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act) were filed with the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and 19 other accused for alleged. The petitioner was said to have signed a P.O. stating that the unit received 1,000 pieces of seal rings when in fact, only 100 were ordered. The Sandiganbayan recommended that the infomations be withdrawn against some of the accused after a comprehensive investigation. Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that it is the Court Martial and not the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused. Petitioner further contends that RA 1850 which provides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case. Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases or the person of the petitioner Decision: The fundamental rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Thus, Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner at the time of the filing of the informations and as now prescribed by law. RA 8249, the latest amendment of PD 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan provides that such will have jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 of members of the Philippines Army and air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of higher rank. In the case at bar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of RA 3018, his position as Lieutenant Commander of the Philippine Navy is a rank lower than naval captains and all officers of higher rank. It must be noted that both the NATURE of the OFFENSE and the POSITION OCCUPIED BY THE ACCUSED are conditions SINE QUA NON before Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance of the case. Thus, regular courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the person of the accused as provided by the Sandiganbayan Law which states that in case where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper RTC, MTC, MCTC or METC pursuant to BP Blg. 129. Consequently, it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the offense charged since under Section 9 of RA 3019, the commission of any violation of said law shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than Six years and One month to FIFTEEN years. The indictment of the petitioner therefore cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC, METC or MCTC.

6. SUBIDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Bayani Subido, then BID Commissioner and Rene Parina, then BID Special Agent conspired and caused the issuance of a warrant of arrest against James Maksimuk. The accused knew hat Maksimuks deportation order was not yet final and executory pending a Motion for Reconsideration, resulting in the detention of the latter which caused him undue injury. A case for arbitrary detention was filed against the accused with the Sandiganbayan. The petitioners filed a motion to quash contending that in view of the effectivity of RA 7975, which is an act to strengthen the Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense charged and the person of the accused. Said motion was denied, hence this petition. Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case at bar Decision: The court dismissed the case. It is true that the crime committed no longer falls within the purview of RA 7975. However, RA 7975 only took effect one year after the commission of the crime charged. It must be remembered that for purposes of Section 4 of RA 1606 which provides that Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over cases committed by public officer and employees in relation to their office, the reckoning point is the time of the commission of the crime. Under PD 1606, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over persons who at the time of the commission of the crime are occupying a position having a Salary Grade 27 or higher. It is true that Parina held a position with a salary grade of less than 27. However, he is being prosecuted as co conspirator of the principal accused who held a position higher that grade 27 thus, section 4 of PD 1606 which provides that in cases where none of the principal accused are occupying the position to salary grade 27 or higher, RTC, MTC, METC or MCTC shall have exclusive jurisdiction will apply. It must be noted that before the enactment of RA 7975, what matters is not the kind of offense so long as it is alleged in the crime committed in relation to the office of the public official, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction try and hear the case. This has been cured by Section 4 of RA 7975 by limiting its jurisdiction only to persons (principal accused) having a salary grade of 27. This, being a curative statute, may be given retroactive effect. Petition was denied.

7. CUYCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: the Graft Investigation Officer found probable cause against Ramon Cuyco for violation of Section 39 of RA 3019 as well as Section 3E of the same act. Two informations were recommended against Cuyco and the other respondents. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation and the prosecution filed he information with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed a motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction contending that at the time of the commission of the offense in 1992, he was occupying the position of Director II, Salary Grade 26, thus RTC has jurisdiction over the case. The prosecution did not oppose such action. The Sandiganbayan however denied the motion, hence, this appeal. Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Decision: The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violation of Section 3a and e of RA 3019 unless committed by public officials and employees occupying position of regional director and higher with Salary Grade 27 and higher. Petitioner admittedly occupied the position of Director II with salary Grade 26 under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 thus, Sandiganbayan incurred serious error of jurisdiction entitling petitioner to the relief prayed. Petition was granted. Jurisdiction determined by the allegations of the complaint.

8. BUAYA v. POLO Facts: Petitioner Solemnidad Buaya was an insurance agent of Country Bankers Insurance Corporation who was authorized to transact insurance business and collect premiums in behalf of the corporation. She was required to make periodic reports and accounting of her transactions and remit premium collections to the principal office of private responded located in the City of Manila. An audit was conducted on petitioners account which showed a shortage of Php 300T. As a result, she was charged with Estafa before the RTC with respondent Hon. Polo. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which motion was denied by respondent Judge. The subsequent motion for reconsideration of this order of denial was also denied. Petitioner contends that RTC in Manila has no jurisdiction because she is based in Cebu City and the funds she allegedly misappropriated with collected in Cebu City. Issue: W/N the RTC in Manila has jurisdiction Decision: The general rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory in character cannot be questioned by certiorari and cannot be subject of appeal. However, this rule is subject to certain exceptions. The reason is that it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial of the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue. It is a general rule that averments in the complaint or information characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried. Section 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: In all criminal prosecution the action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any of the essential elements thereof took place. The subject information charges the petitioner with Estafa committed during the period 1980 to June 1982 inclusive in the City of Manila. Clearly them. From the allegations of the information the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction. Besides, the crime of Estafa is a continuing crime, which may be prosecuted at the place where any of he essential elements of the crime took place. The petitioner clearly prejudiced private respondents in Manila and therefore, the crime was committed here. Petition was dismissed.

9. REPUBLIC v. SUNGA Facts: The complainant Jose Dadis filed a case for the attempted homicide against Ariston and Rafael Anadilla. While the case is pending, Jose Dadis filed an affidavit of desistance and was no longer interested in the prosecution of the case. Jose said that he had forgiven the accused and that his material witness could no longer be contracted the court then lifted the order of arrest, cancelled the bail bond and ordered the release of the accused. The Provincial Fiscal moved for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal, which was denied, hence this appeal. Issue: W/N the court may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party, but without the motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal. Decision: The filing of a complaint or information in the Court initiated a criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant of arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the court which has the option to grant or deny the same. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court because the determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of law. But to avoid similar situation, the court takes the view tat while Cespo doctrine has settled that the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be dismissed, still, any move on the part of the complainant or offended party to dismiss the criminal case even if without objection of the accuse, should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own vie on the matter. He is after all, in control of his prosecution of the case and he may have his own reasons why the case should not be dismissed. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by waiver.

10. UNITED STATES v. DE LA SANTA Facts: The complainant Teofila Sevilla charges the defendant with the crime of seduction under a promise of marriage at the time when she was less than 21 years of age. The complaint was filed by her father when she was already 24 years old. The court contends that the alleged seduction could only be instituted and maintained at her instance since she was already of legal age, otherwise the trial court shall have no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction over a complaint. Decision: As provided by the RPC, complainant can institute criminal action against the defendant in cases of seduction should it be proven that she is already of the majority age. Although the parents and guardians are mentioned disjunctively, still, the right to institute criminal proceedings in cases of seduction is exclusively and successively reposed in these persons in the order in which they are named so that no one of them has authority to proceed if there is any other person previously mentioned therein with legal capacity to appear and institute action. Under the Civil code, a woman 23 years of age is already in the full possession of her civil rights, save only in certain exceptional cases expressly prescribed in the code. The right to appear and prosecute or defend an action in the court is not one of these exceptions and, indeed, it is inherent to the full exercise of civil rights. Under the provision of the RPC, jurisdiction over the crime of seduction is expressly denied the trial court unless such jurisdiction be conferred by one of certain persons specified in the law, in this case, by the offended person herself. This is important not only for the sufficiency of the complaint but goes directly to the jurisdiction of the court over the crime. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter is fatal and subject to the objection at any stage of the proceedings, either in court below or on appeal. Where the subject matter is not within the jurisdiction, the court may dismiss the proceeding ex mero motu. Jurisdiction over subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority, which organizes the court; it is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law and an objection based on the lack of such jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties. Judgment was reversed and the complaint was dismissed. Jurisdiction not conferred by consent

11. US v. REYES Facts: the complaint charges the defendant with the crime of Estafa and falsification and alleges the former, being an employee of the Manila Dagupan Railway issued a ticket to a passenger who was going from Manila to Caloocan and continued his trip to Malolos. The difference in the fare is 1 peso and 22 cents. The ticket issued simulated that the tip was from Manila to Bocaue and the charge only 18 cents, rendering the said amount to the company while appropriating the balance of the sum. The complaint was not able to precisely designate the place where the falsification was committed not where the appropriation occurred. Issue: W/N the court of Tarlac has jurisdiction to try the case Decision: The crime of Estafa was committed at the where his account was rendered and the stub of the false ticket was turned it. In this case, the stubs and false tickets were turned in Tarlac. The court in Tarlac therefore has jurisdiction since it is within this territory that the accused made use of the document alleged to be false and where the falsification was committed. The fact that the CFI took jurisdiction of the offense charged, because in the opinion of the court, the place of the commission of the crime was not clearly shown, is not an obstacle to the courts declaration itself to be without jurisdiction as soon as the lack of jurisdiction appeared from the proceedings subsequently had. Jurisdiction over criminal cases cannot be conferred by consent. The appeal was granted. Estopped by laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction

12. PEOPLE v. REGULARIO Facts: Accused together with several others murdered on Menardo Garcia in Lucena. During arraignment, the appellants entered a plea of not guilty however, before the prosecution rested its case, Regalario and his accomplice Pabillar, changed their plea to guilty. After trial, all appellants were found guilty of the offense charged. Appellants counsel filed a motion for reconsideration on the 14 th day of the 15-day period for appeal, which was denied, by the trial court. They then filed a notice of appeal, which was denied for having been filed out of time (10 days after the receipt of the first denial). Issue: W/N the court can still exercise jurisdiction over the case considering that the appeal was filed out of time. Decision: The trial court was correct in rejecting appellants notice of appeal since it was filed beyond the reglamentary period. However, as in People vs. Tamani, although the appeal of the accused was demonstrably filed out of time, to obviate the miscarriage of justice, the court nevertheless reviewed the case and rendered judgment on the merits thereof in view of the fact that the filing of the appeal out of time was due to the inadvertence of the defense counsel. The same may also be granted in the present case adopting the principle of estoppel by laches to bar attack on jurisdiction.

13. DELA CRUZ v. MOYA Doctrine: Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up the end of the litigation. Facts: Rodolfo de la Cruz is a member of the Armed Force of the Philippines assigned to the Intelligence and Operation Section of the PC Company, together with other PC me, received a mission order to proceed to Davao for the purpose of verifying and apprehending persons who were engaged in illegal cockfighting which they complied with. The operators of the illegal cockfights, including the deceased Eusebio Cabilto followed the soldiers on their way back to the headquarters. Fighting ensued and in the scuffled, dela Cruz shot Cabilto. The petitioner was charged with homicide in the CFI. Claiming that the crime for which he was chaged was committed in relation to the performance of his duties, petitioner filed a motion to transfer the case to the military authorities so he could be tried in a court martial. The motion was denied. Issue: W/M the civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case at bar. Decision: One of the essential requisites of a valid court proceeding is that the court hearing the case must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. If the court is acting without jurisdiction, then the entire proceedings are null and void. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in the force at the time of the commencement of action. The case was filed on August 2, 1979. On such date, by virtue of General Order No 59, military tribunals created under general order No. 8, exercised exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by military personnel of the AFP while in the performance of their duty provided that a certificate from the Secretary of National defense for the purpose of determining whether the offense was really committed while in the performance of a duty. This proviso does not in any way preclude the courts from making any finding as to whether an offense is duty-connected. Nor doe it make the certificate a condition precedent for the exercise by either civilian courts or military tribunals of their jurisdiction over offenses committed. The fact that there was a mission order and that the victim was shot while petitioner was executing the mission order compels the court to declare that respondent court was without jurisdiction. Petition was granted

14. PEOPLE v. MAGALLANES Doctrine: Jurisdiction once acquired is not affected by subsequent legislative enactment placing jurisdiction in another tribunal. It remains with the court until the case is finally terminated. Sandiganbayan or the court as the case may be cannot be divested of jurisdiction over cases filed before them by reason RA 7975. They retain their jurisdiction until the end of litigation. Facts: The Dumancas spouses complained with the police saying that a certain Rufino Gargar and Danilo Lumngyao swindled them. The accused together with civilian agents arrested and abducted the swindling suspects and forced them to produce the money they got from the spouses. The two were found dead a few days after. Two informations for kidnapping for ransom with murder were filed with the RTC against members of the PNP and nine other civilians who confederated with each other for the purpose of extorting money through kidnapping the two victims. Petitioner contends that the crime was committed in the course of the performance of duties of the accused, thus, Sandiganbayan should have jurisdiction by virtue of PD 1606. Issue: W/N the RTC of Bacolod or the Sandiganbayan that has jurisdiction over the two criminal cases for kidnapping for ransom with murder wherein some of the accused implicated as principals are members of the PNP. Decision: At the time the informations in the said cases were filed, the law governing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was section 4 of PD No 1060 which provided that the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction in all cases involving public officers and employees who committed felonies in relation to their office, which must be alleged in the complaint. An offense is considered as committed in relation to the office if it cannot exist without the office or if the office is the constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute. It is a fundamental rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. In the case at bar, the information in the court do not indicate that the victims were killed in the course of the investigation. What was alleged is that the accused, for the purpose of extracting or exhorting a sum of money, abducted, kidnapped, detained and killed the two victims. The allegation of taking advantage of his position incorporated in the information is not enough to bring the offenses within the definition of offenses committed in relation to public office. The Sandiganbayan partly lost its exclusive original jurisdiction in cases involving violation of RA 3019 as amended, RA No. 1379 and the RPC. It retains only cases where the accused are national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. RA No 7975 cannot affect the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan since jurisdiction once acquired is not affected by subsequent legislative enactment placing jurisdiction in another tribunal. It remains with the court until the case is finally terminated. Hence, the Sandiganbayan or any other courts cannot be divested of jurisdiction. In the case at bar, Sandiganbayan has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases as the informations were filed before the RTC. Assuming that the informations were filed with the said tribunal, the Sandiganbayan can no longer proceed to hear the cases in view of the express provision of Section 7 of RA 7975 that all criminal cases in which the trial has not yet begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper courts. RTC was ordered to resume hearing the case.

15. UY v. COURT OF APPEALS Facts: While Rosa Uy was helping her husband manage their lumber business, she and a friend, Consolacion agreed to form a partnership wherein the latter will contribute additional capital as industrial partner for the expansion of Rosas lumber business. Various sums amounting to Php 500,000.00 were claimed to have been given by Consolacion for the business, but no receipt was ever issued. The friendship of the two turned sour, thus, Consolacion demanded the return of her investment but the checks issued by Rosa were all dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Consolaction filed a complaint for Estafa and for violation of BP 22. The Manila RTC acquitted the petitioner of Estafa but convicted her of the charges under BP Blg. 22. Petitioner contents that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the offenses under BP 22 and assuming arguendo that she raised the matter of jurisdiction only upon appeal, she cannot be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction Issue: W/N the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of the Bouncing checks Law. Decision: Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. This it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside that of that limited territory. Jurisdiction of the court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Once it is shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. In the case at bar, the crimes of Estafa and violation of BP are two different offenses having different elements and necessarily, for the court to acquire jurisdiction, each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to be satisfied. The respondent court is wrong to conclude that inasmuch as the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the Estafa case then it also acquired jurisdiction over the violation of BP 22. No proof has been offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonored or knowledge of insufficiency of funds occurred in Manila, which are essential elements necessary for the Manila Court to acquire jurisdiction. BP 22 on the other hand, as a continuing offense, may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part committee. Petitioner also timely questioned the jurisdiction of the court. As provided by jurisprudence, we can see that even if a party fails to file a motion to quash, he may still question the jurisdiction of the court later on. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over a subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court, may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, even on appeal. However, this rule has been qualified in the case of Tijan vs, Sibonghanoy wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court can be held to be barred by laches. This case however cannot be applied in the case at bar since the accused is not guilty of laches. RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction over the case. ( Exceptions to the General Rule of Adherence to Jurisdiction)

16. BINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: BINAY CASE On Sept. 7, 1994, the office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan one information for violation of art.220 of RPC (illegal use of public funds) and 2 for violation of RA3019 (anti-graft), which were amended on Sept 15, 1994, against Jejomar Binay alleging that these were committed in 1997 during his incumbency as Mayor of Makati, then a municipality of Metro Manila. On June 13, 1995, after RA 7975, redefining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, took effect (May 16, 1995), Binay filed a motion to refer his cases to the proper court for further proceedings, but was de nied by the Sandiganbayan. As such he filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and Mandamus questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan before the Supreme Court. MAGSAYSAY CASE Mario Magsaysay is the mayor of the Municipality of San Pascual, Batangas, all of his copetitioners in this case are officials of the same municipality. On April 16, 1994, Victor Cusi, V-mayor of the same municipality, charged petitioners with violation of RA3019 for overpaying Vicente de la Rosa (also petitioner herein) of TDR Construction for the landscaping project of the San Pascual Central School. A resolution by Graft Investigation Officer Alarilla recommended the filing of the information with the Sandiganbayan. However, it was filed in the RTC of Batangas instead, peculiarly the information was signed by the same Alarilla. Subsequently, the Concerned Citizens of San Pascual, Batangas, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against the petitioners for the same violation. Thereafter another information alleging the same offense was filed before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners moved to quash the information alleging that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case. While the cases were pending, Congress enacted RA8249, redefining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Issue: W/N the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving municipal mayors accused of violations of RA3019 and Art.220 of the RPC. Considering that: 1. At the alleged commission of the crimes, municipal mayors were not classified as Grade 27. To support this contention, they presented certifications saying that the salary they received was below that of the salary received by a grade 27 officer. For Binay his salary was only P10, 793/month equivalent to Grade 22 and for Magsaysay P11, 828/month equivalent to Grade 25. They based this on RA6758 (Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989). 2. Municipal Mayors are not included in the enumeration in Sec. 4a(1) of Pd1606 as amended by RA 7975. Petitioners invoke the rule in Statutory Construction: inclusion unius est exclusion alterius: what is not included in those enumerated is deemed excluded. Congressional records reveal that the law did not intend municipal mayors to come under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan Decision: THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court does not subscribe to the manner by which petitioners classify Grades. The Constitution states that in providing for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees, Congress shall take into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to and the qualifications required of their positions, thus RA6758 provides that the Grade depends upon the nature of ones position relative to another position. It is the persons grade that determines the salary not the other way around. It is possible that a local government officials salary may be less than that prescribed for his Grade since his salary also depends on the financial capability of his respective government unit. Nevertheless, it is the law, which fixes the officials grade. RA 6758 instructs the Dept. of Budget and Management (DBM) to prepare an Index of Occupation Services listing the Salary Grades of Government officials. Both the 1989 and 1997 version of

said Index classifies municipal mayors under Grade 27, as such municipal mayors come within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Resort to Statutory Construction is not appropriate where the law is clear and unambiguous. The enumeration under section 4a(1) is not exclusive. MORE ON BINAY Under sec.7 of RA 7975: upon effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases in which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper court. The proper import of this section is laid down in Bengzon v. Inciong: The rule is that where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the stature expressly provided that it is intended to operate to actions pending before its enactment. Where the statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute. To this effect, RA 7975 is retroactive. Effects of Section 7: 1. If trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan has already begun as of the approval of RA7975, then RA 7975 does not apply. 2. If trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan has NOT begun as of the approval of RA7975, then it applies. a. If by virtue of sec.4 of RA7975, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case, then the case shall be referred to the Sandiganbayan. b. If by virtue of sec.4 of RA7975, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction, then the case shall be referred to the regular courts. As the trial of Binay had not yet begun as of date of the approval of RA7975, the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over the case. MORE ON MAGSAYSAY Petitioners invoke the rule that jurisdiction of a court one it attaches cannot be ousted by subsequent event, although of such character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. They claim that the filing of the info in the Sandiganbayan was a subsequent even which cannot oust the RTC of its jurisdiction. This rule has no application here as the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case in the first place. Furthermore, when the info was filed with the RTC RA7975 was already in effect, thus the need to be referred to the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners invoke that respondents are estopped from filing an info with the Sandiganbayan considering that they had already filed another info alleging the same facts before the RTC. While the court in certain cases has ruled that estoppel prevents a party from questioning the jurisdiction of the court that the party himself invoked, estoppel remains the exception and not the rule, the rule being that jurisdiction is vested by law. Furthermore, the respondent in this case is the State and estoppel is not applied to the State.

17. SANCHEZ and MANAGAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Petitioners are officers of the Phil. Army. Lt.Col. Lino Sanchez was Commanding Officer, 9 Post Engineer Detachment, Headquarters and Headquarters Support Group (HHSG), while Major Vicente Managay was G-4, HHSG. On June 16, 1993, court martial proceedings were initiated against them and Gaudencio Romualdez based on a report stating that there was a prima facie case against them for violation of Art. 95 of the articles of war for causing the wrongful release of Php 5,995,47 for payment of repair of G10 office of the Phil. Army, equivalent to 88.55% completion of the work, when in fact only 25% of the work had been completed to the damage of the government. The judge advocate of the Phil. Army referred the findings to the provincial Prosecutor of Rizal, recommending the filing of info with the Sandiganbayan. On April 8, 1994, Sanchez was arraigned before the Gen. Court Martial No.2 while Managay on July 1, 1994. They both pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile on April 18, 1994, an info was filed against them before the Sandigan for violation of RA 3019. Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case before the Sandigan alleging that it has no jurisdiction over the case as the court martial had acquired original and exclusive jurisdiction and that the acts complained of before the court martial and the Sandigan are one and the same. Decision: Although the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction at the time the charge was filed, it lost its jurisdiction upon the enactment of RA 7975 because he falls below the rank of full colonel and trial has not yet begun.
th

18. LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Facts: Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies, were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors. Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of the Criminal Investigation Command, that what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation. However, a review board modified the panels finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including herein petitioner, charged as principal, and herein petitioner-intervenors, charged as accessories. After a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan, where petitioner was charged only as an accessory. The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that under the amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. 7975. They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or ore of the principal accused are government officals with Salary Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. Thus, they did not qualify under said requisites. However, pending resolution of their motions, R.A. 8249 was approved amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word principal from the phrase principal accused in Section 2 of R.A. 7975. Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, including Section 7 which provides that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. Issues: (1) Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate the petitioners right to due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution as the provisions seemed to have been introduced for the Sandiganbayan to continue to acquire jurisdiction over the Kuratong Baleleng case. (2) Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute. (3) Whether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng was committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers which is essential to the determination whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayans or Regional Trial Courts jurisdiction. Held: Petitioner and intervenors posture that Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the law is too shallow to deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant such a declaration. Every classification made by the law is presumed reasonable and the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial distinction; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class; all of which are present in this case. Paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply to all cases involving certain public officials and under the transitory provision in Section 7, to all cases pending in any court. Contrary to petitioner and intervenors argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in any court. There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. Ex post facto law, generally, provides retroactive effect of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not a penal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, as regards the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has be en declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. Not being a penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information which is

essential in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. However, upon examination of the amended information, there was no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody. The stringent requirement that the charge set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was not established. Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan.

19. UNITED STATES v. MORALES Facts: Rosauro Sabino, Francisco Primoso and Romualdo Ramos were arrested in Caloocan while Balbino Morales was arrested in Malabon, both municipalities are beyond the limits of the city of Manila. They were convicted in the CFI of Manila for the crime of Brigandage. Evidence, however, discloses that the offenses were committed in the Provinces of Bulacan and Rizal. Decision: When the record discloses that the crime as alleged in the complaint was not committed in the province wherein the trial was had, and the accused was not arrested in that province and defendant had not fled there from, the Court of First Instance of that Province has no jurisdiction to impose sentence. In such cases, of the court has reasonable ground to believe that the crime has been committed; the accused should be remanded to the court of proper jurisdiction for trial.

20. RCBC v. ISANI Facts: In a complaint filed a few days after the effectivity of RA7691 (expanding the jurisdiction of municipal and metropolitan trial courts) with the Makati RTC, Lolita Encelan sought to recover from RCBC actual damages of $5,000 or P137,675. RCBC moved for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it is under the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) not the RTC, the principal demand prayed for not being in excess of P200,000. Respondent RTC judge Isnani, instead of dismissing the complaint, transferred the entire records of the case to the MTC. Decision: It has been held that where the court has no jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the complaint, instead of ordering the transfer, the court should dismiss the case.

21. REPUBLIC v. ASUNCION Facts: Alexander Dionisio y Manio, member of the PNP, was assigned to the Central Police District Command Station 2 in Novaliches, when he was dispatched to Dumalay Street to respond to a complaint that a person was creating trouble there. Dionioso proceeded to the place, where he subsequently shot to death T/Sgt. Romeo Sadang. While trial for homicide was already in progress in the RTC of QC, the case was dismissed for refilling with the Sandiganbayan on the ground that it is the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the case. The private prosecutor moved for dismissal citing the opinion of the Sec of the DOJ that crimes committed by PNP members are not cognizable by the Sandiganbayan because they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts as provided in RA 6975 and the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special court as stated in the 1973 constitution and as the 1987 constitution provides that the present anti-graft court shall continue to function and exercise it jurisdiction. Decision: The Court sanctioned the transfer of cases from the RTC for lack of jurisdiction to the Sandiganbayan. The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan is a regular court. While it is a special court, it is a regular court within the context of RA 6975 because it is a court normally functioning with continuity within the jurisdiction vested on it and that the term regular courts is used in Sec. 46 of R A 6975 to distinguish the said courts form courts-martial for it seeks to divest the latter of such jurisdiction and mandates its transfers to the former pursuant to the policy of the law to establish a police force national in scope and civilian in character. The Sandiganbayan is a regular court as stated in the Administrative Code of 1987. However, for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction it is necessary that the offenses were committed by public officers in relation to their office. In here, there is no indication that the trouble-maker was the victim and that he was shot by Dionisio in the course of the latters mission. As such, the court directed the RTC of QC to conduct a preliminary hearing within 15 from receipt of decision, to determine if the crime was committed in relation to public office. If it be determined in the affirmative, the case shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan as if the same were originally fined with it. Otherwise, the RTC should proceed with the trial of the case and render judgment thereon.

22. CUNANAN v. ARCEO Facts: Accused, a PNP officer was on a mission at Candaba Pampanga. He went out of the police station after hearing a commotion and fired a warning shot, with the intention of restoring peace and order which was disturbed and broken by the fight between the victim and Rogelio Agustin and alter between the victim and one Pfc. Basa. An information for murder was filed against the accused. Petitioner now contents that he committed the offense charged in relation to his public office. RTC ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case since the offense charged was done in the performance of petitioners official functions thus the judge dismissed the case. A month after, the decision was modified stating that the same must be transmitted with the Sandiganbayan. Issue: W/N the transfer was valid Decision: Petitioner contends that jurisdiction over the case was fixed in the RTC as the Asuncion ruling is inapplicable, since here trial had already ended and the case was submitted for decision when the Asuncion ruling was promulgated. A transfer of his case to the Sandiganbayan at this late state will expose him to double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The RTCs initial assumption of jurisdiction does not preven t it form subsequently declaring itself to be without jurisdiction as it was found out in the hearing that Cunanan had committed the offence while he was in the performance of his duties as policeman. He shot the victim in the course of trying to restore local public order which had been breached by a fistfight between the victim and 2 other individuals. The absence in the info of an allegation that Cunanan committed the offense charged in relation to his office is immaterial and easily remedied. As the case had already been forwarded to the Sandiganbayan, the said info may be amended at any time before arraignment before the Sandiganbayan, considering that such amendment would not affect the juridical nature of the offense charge, it would not prejudice Cun anans substantive rights. There is no double jeopardy as the RTC was without jurisdiction and the dismissal of the info by the RTC was not equivalent to acquittal, it simply reflected that the proceedings therein was terminated.