Antiporda,

Jr. vs Garchitorena to file the Information of the said case since it falls within the exclusive
GR No. 133289 Dec. 23, 1999 jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (the accused were elected public
official).
Doctrine: Rule is well settled that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction Note: PD 1606 states “In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and
of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent, and after from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same Ombudsman through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People
jurisdiction. of the Philippines except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos.
Facts 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.”
1. Antiporda, Gallardo, and Rubiaco and two others were charged
of the crime of kidnapping Ramos in the Information filed in the First Issue:
Division of Sandiganbayan. However, in the information it was not 1. WON the SandiganBayan which has no jurisdiction over the
indicated how the crime was related to their office. offense charged in the original information, subsequently acquire such
2. Prosecutor Agcaoili requested and was subsequently granted by jurisdiction by the simple expedient of amending the information to
the Court to file an amended Information. In the amended version now supply, for the first time, jurisdictional facts not previously averred in
include the information that Antiporda was the Mayor of Buguey, the original information?
Cagayan and that Juan Gallardo, Barangay Captain of San Lorenzo, 2. WON the amended information be allowed without conducting
Buguey, Cagayan (now deceased) and accused Eliterio Rubiaco, anew a preliminary investigation for the graver offense charged therein?
barangay councilman of San Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan along with two
others. Held:
3. At first the accused claimed that SB did not have jurisdiction • No. A court acquires jurisdiction to try a criminal case only when
over the subject matter because the first information did not aver the following requisites concur: (1) the offense is one which the court is
relation to office. Thus, they filed a motion for new preliminary by law authorized to take cognizance of, (2) the offense must have been
investigation and hold in abeyance and/or recall of warrant. This was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and (3) the person charged
denied because according to the court, the accused have not yet with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial,
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court thus their motion cannot be forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the
heard. court.
4. The then filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information. But o The accused cannot both claim that the court has no jurisdiction
later when the court denied their motion due again to the fact that they over the subject matter but it has jurisdiction over their person because
had not yet submitted to its jurisdiction, they claim in their motion for jurisdiction is ONLY acquired upon the concurrence of the three
reconsideration that the court had jurisdiction over their person when requisites.
by their filling their motion to quash and by their counsel’s appearance o Sandiganbayan did NOT acquire jurisdiction over the subject
which amounted to voluntary appearance. matter because the first Information did not aver relation to the office.
5. Incidentally they filed a supplemental argument to support their It was only after the same was filed that the prosecution belatedly
motion for reconsideration and or re-investigation. They questioned the remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein.
authority of the Provincial Prosecutor to conduct Preliminary o HOWEVER, the accused was ESTOPPED from assailing the
Investigation since according to them there was no record that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the subject matter because in
Ombudsman authorized the former to do the Prelim Investigation and their supplemental argument (Fact no. 6 above) where they themselves
claim that the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the case. People v. Henry T. Go
Thus SB still was vested with jurisdiction to try the case. March 25, 2014 GR 168539
• Yes. A reinvestigation is proper only if the accused's substantial
rights would be impaired. Here the rights of the accused were not Doctrines: Death of a public officer conspiring with a private person
unduly prejudice. does not divest Sandiganbayan of its jurisdiction in cases involving
violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 (or, perhaps, cases wherein
conspiracy with public officers is an essential element) as long as it is
alleged in the Information.

The act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions seeking
affirmative relief is tantamount to submission of his person to the
jurisdiction of the court.

Facts: Ma. Cecilia Pesayco (CP) filed a complaint with the Ombudsman
against several individuals, one of which is Henry Go (HG) who was then
the Chairman and President of Philippine Air Terminals Co. Inc.
(PIATCO), for having conspired with then DOTC Sec. Arturo Enrile (AE) in
entering into contract which is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous
to the government – said contract involving construction, operation and
maintenance of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International
Passenger Terminal III.

On Sept. 16, 2004, Ombudsman found probable cause to indict, among
others, HG for violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019, aka Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Probable cause also found against AE but he died
prior to the issuance of the resolution finding probable cause.

On March 10, 2005, Sandiganbayan (SB) issued an Order giving
prosecution to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction considering HG is a private person and the public
officer AE, his alleged co-conspirator, is already deceased, and not an
accused in this case.

Prosecution contended that SB has already acquired jurisdiction over
the person of HG by reason of his voluntary appearance, when he filed a
motion for consolidation, when he posted bail and that SB has exclusive
jurisdiction over HG's case, even if he is a private person, because he
was alleged to have conspired with a public officer. (information says AE law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances,
conspired with HG) be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where
the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present
On April 28, 2005, HG filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that the case where the public officer has already died, the private person may
operative facts adduced in the Information do not constitute an offense be indicted alone.
under Sec. 3(g) of RA 3019. And, citing the (show cause) Order of the SB,
also contended that, independently of the deceased AE, the public The avowed policy of the State and the legislative intent to repress "acts
officer with whom he was alleged to have conspired, HG, who is not a of public officers and private persons alike, which constitute graft or
public officer nor was capacitated by any official authority as a corrupt practices," would be frustrated if the death of a public officer
government agent, may not be prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3(g) of would bar the prosecution of a private person who conspired with such
RA 3019. public officer in violating the Anti-Graft Law.

SB granted Motion to Quash since the lone accused (HG) in this case is a Respondent should be reminded that prior to this Court's ruling in G.R.
private person and his alleged co-conspirator-public-official was already No. 168919, he already posted bail for his provisional liberty. In fact, he
deceased long before this case was filed in court, thus lacking even filed a Motion for Consolidation in Criminal Case No. 28091. The
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Court agrees with petitioner's contention that private respondent's act
of posting bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation vests the SB with
Hence petition. jurisdiction over his person. The rule is well settled that the act of an
accused in posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief is
Issue: WON a private person may be indicted for conspiracy in violating tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
Section 3(g) of RA 3019 even if the public officer, with whom he was
alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Information. ***In GR 28091, HG was indicted before the SB for conspiracy with AE in
WON SB acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused due to his violating same provision by allegedly entering into another agreement
posting of bail and filing of motion for consolidation. (side agreement) which is separate from the Concession Agreement
subject of the present case. Said case was dismissed by SB for lack of
Held: (1st issue) Yes. It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile's death, jurisdiction. Prosecution appealed and it was docketed under GR
there is no longer any public officer with whom respondent can be 168919. In a minute resolution, the Court denied petition of prosecution
charged for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not mean, however, that the assailing the dismisal of SB for lack of jurisdiction finding no reversible
allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or that error in SB ruling.
their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing
extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His (2nd issue) Yes. "[L]ack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the may be waived either expressly or impliedly. When a defendant
charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent. voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court. If he so wishes not to waive this defense, he
The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation must do so seasonably by motion for the purpose of objecting to the
of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person jurisdiction of the court; otherwise, he shall be deemed to have
must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The submitted himself to that jurisdiction."
 Cojuangco Jr. vs Sandiganbayan GR.134307
In the instant case, respondent did not make any special appearance to
question the jurisdiction of the SB over his person prior to his posting of
bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation. In fact, his Motion to Quash DOCTRINE
the Information in Criminal Case No. 28090 only came after the SB The rule is well-settled that the giving or posting of bail by the accused is
issued an Order requiring the prosecution to show cause why the case tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over his person. When a defendant in a criminal case is brought before a competent
court by virtue of a warrant of arrest or otherwise, in order to avoid the
Petition is GRANTED. submission of his body to the jurisdiction of the court he must raise the
question of the courts jurisdiction over his person at the very earliest
opportunity. If he gives bail, demurs to the complaint or files any
dilatory plea or pleads to the merits, he thereby gives the court
jurisdiction over his person. Conceding again that the warrant issued in
this case was void for the reason that no probable cause was found by
the court before issuing it, the defendant waived all his rights to object
to the same by appearing and giving bond. By posting bail, herein
petitioner cannot claim exemption from the effect of being subject to
the jurisdiction of respondent court. Moreover, where the appearance is
by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court
over the person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose of
objecting to said jurisdiction. If the appearance is for any other purpose,
the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction
of the court. Verily, petitioners participation in the proceedings before
the Sandiganbayan was not confined to his opposition to the issuance of
a warrant of arrest but also covered other matters which called for
respondent courts exercise of its jurisdiction. Petitioner may not be
heard now to deny said courts jurisdiction over him.

FACTS:
• Petition for prohibition under Section 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court seeks to dismiss Criminal Case No. 22018 (People vs. Cojuangco,
Jr., et al.,) now pending before respondent Sandiganbayan (First
Division), and to prohibit said court from further proceeding with the
case.
• Criminal Case No. 22018 is an offshoot of a complaint filed by OSG
before the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),
against former Administrator of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA)
and the former members of the PCA Governing Board (including against petitioner and the other accused in Criminal Case No. 22018 and
petitioner) for violation of R.A. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt recommended the dismissal of the case. The recommendation for
Practices Act) dismissal was approved by the Honorable Ombudsman on November
• Respondents were charged for having taking undue advantage of their 15, 1996. • December 13, 1996 petitioner filed an Urgent Motion To
public positions, using their powers, authority, influence, connections Dismiss. June 19, 1997, petitioner filed a Second Motion To Resolve the
with the former Pres. Marcos and Imelda Marcos, without authority, Urgent Motion To Dismiss. January 23, 1998 petitioner filed a Third
granted a donation in the amount of P2M to the Philippine Coconut Motion To Resolve the Urgent Motion To Dismiss
Producers Federation (COCOFED) thereby giving COCOFED unwarranted PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS: 1. That the warrant of arrest issued by
benefits, advantage and preference through manifest partiality, evident respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void for lack of sufficient basis
bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence to the prejudice of the upon which it could have personally determined the existence of
Filipino people and to the Republic of the Philippines. probable cause to issue the warrant of arrest against him. 2. That
• In a Resolution dated June 2, 1992, the panel of investigators reliance on the prosecutors report alone is not sufficient in determining
recommended the filing of an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of whether there is probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
R.A. No. 3019, as amended, against herein petitioner and five other 3. That since the warrant of arrest is null and void, Sandiganbayan never
respondents. acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner;
• In a Memorandum dated July 15, 1992 the Office of the Special ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Sandiganbayan could still exercise
Prosecutor affirmed the recommendation as contained in the Resolution jurisdiction over the petitioner and proceed with the trial of the case.
dated June 2, 1992. HELD: YES On the petitioners’ contentions: 1.The determination of
• February 16, 1995: Criminal Case No. 22018 was filed with the probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that
Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, an order for the arrest of petitioner was which is to be made by the judge. 1.Since their objectives are different,
issued by Sandiganbayan. the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding
• February 19, 1995 petitioner filed with respondent court an probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Obviously
Opposition to Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with Motion For Leave To and understandably, the contents of the prosecutors report will support
File Motion For Reconsideration of Ombudsman Resolutions. his own conclusion that there is reason to charge the accused of an
• Contending that since the only documents attached to the Information offense and hold him for trial. However, the judge must decide
and submitted to respondent Sandiganbayan were the Resolution dated independently. Hence, he must have supporting evidence, other than
June 2, 1992 of the panel of investigators and the Memorandum dated the prosecutors bare report, upon which to legally sustain his own
January 16, 1995 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the same were findings on the existence (or nonexistence) of a probable cause to issue
not adequate for the determination of probable cause for the issuance an arrest order. 2. As alleged by petitioner, in the case at bar, the
of a warrant of arrest by respondent Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan had two pieces of documents to consider when it
• February 22, 1995, petitioner posted bail. He likewise filed a resolved to issue the warrant of arrest against the accused: (1) the
Manifestation stating that he was posting bail without prejudice to the Resolution dated June 2, 1992 of the Panel of Investigators of the Office
Opposition To Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with Motion For Leave To of the Ombudsman recommending the filing of the Information and (2)
File a Motion For Reconsideration of the Ombudsmans Resolution which the Memorandum dated June 16, 1995 of the Office of the Special
he filed. Prosecutor denying the existence of a prejudicial question which will
• In a Memorandum dated October 22, 1995, Special Prosecution warrant the suspension of the criminal case. The Sandiganbayan had
Officer Victorio Tabanguil found no probable cause to warrant the filing nothing more to support its resolution. Similarly, we are now
constrained to rule that herein respondent court failed to abide by the Miranda vs. Tuliao
constitutional mandate of personally determining the existence of G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006
probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. Hence, the warrant of
arrest issued by respondent court on February 17, 1995 against herein CASE DOCTRINE: Filing of pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes
petitioner is palpably invalid. 2.The Office of the Special Prosecutor and voluntary appearance and consequent submission of one’s person to the
the Office of the Solicitor General are in agreement, that whatever jurisdiction of the court, except if the pleadings are precisely for the
infirmity might have attended the issuance of the warrant of arrest avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special
against petitioner, it was cured by petitioners subsequent act of appearance.
voluntarily submitting to respondent courts jurisdiction by posting his FACTS:
bail and filing the following pleadings which sought affirmative relief, to On 8 March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan,
wit: 1. Opposition to Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with Motion for Ramon, Isabela, which were later identified as the dead bodies of Vicente
Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration; 2. Motion for extension of Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao.
time to file Motion for Reconsideration; 3. Seven (7) Motions to Travel Upon the two informations for murder filed against SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño,
Abroad and two Motions for Extension of time to stay abroad. Hence, SPO1 Ferdinand Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Micu,
they contend that respondent courts jurisdiction over petitioner has SPO2 Rodel Maderal, and SPO4 Emilio Ramirez in the RTC of Santiago City,
remained in effect. RTC Manila, upon the change of venue, convicted all of the accused and
sentenced them to two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2
Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large.
The SC, on automatic review, acquitted the accused therein on the
ground of reasonable doubt.
After getting arrested, SPO2 Maderal executed a sworn confession and
identified Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, SPO3 Alberto P.
Dalmacio, a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons
responsible for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao.
Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan then issued warrants of arrest
against the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal upon the complaint filed by
Tuliao.
Petitioners then filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary
investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the warrants of
arrest.
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint
Order denying said urgent motion on the ground that the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over their persons.
Petitioners however, contended that jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is required only in application for bail and assuming that such
jurisdiction over their person is required before the court can act on their
motion to quash the warrant for their arrest, such jurisdiction over their
person was already acquired by the court by their filing of the Urgent ARNOLD ALVA, Petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
Motion. Doctrine: Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the instance of parties,
ISSUE: W/N Miranda and other petitioners are entitled for judicial relief as when an accused escapes from the custody of the law, but continues
since the RTC already acquired jurisdiction over their person upon the until the case is terminated.
filing of the motions. Facts:
HELD: NO, jurisdiction over their person is not yet acquired. As we held 1. Arnold Alva, by means of false manifestation and fraudulent
in the case of Santiago, seeking an affirmative relief in court, whether in representation which he made to Yumi Veranga y Hervera to the effect
civil or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance. There is, that he could process the latter’s application for U.S. Visa provided she
however, an exception to the rule. This is in the case of pleadings whose would give the amount of P120,000.00. He succeeded in inducing her to
prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which give and deliver the amount of P120,000.00 on the strength of said
only leads to a special appearance. These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, manifestation and representation, well knowing that the same were false
motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person and untrue for the reason that the U.S. Visa is not genuine and were made
of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included solely to obtain the amount of P120,000.00.
(2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack 2. On 5 September 1995, the RTC issued a Recall Order of the
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and (3) motions to quash a Warrant of Arrest against petitioner in view of the approval of his bail
warrant of arrest. The first two are consequences of the fact that failure bond. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime
to file them would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction charged. After the trial on the merits, the RTC considered the case
over the person. The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very submitted for decision.
legality of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the 3. On 19 May 1999, petitioner and counsel both failed to appear in
accused that is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest. court despite due notice. In his stead, claiming to be petitioner’s
representative, a certain Joey Perez personally delivered to the RTC a
hand written medical certificate expressing petitioner’s inability to attend
the day’s hearing due to hypertension. In response to the aforestated acts
of petitioner and counsel, the RTC issued an Order directing the
promulgation of its decision in absentia and the issuance of a bench
warrant of arrest against petitioner for his failure to appear before it
despite due notice.
4. In its decision dated 25 March 1999, the RTC found petitioner
guilty of the crime of estafa.
5. On appeal before the Court of Appeals, the appellate court
required petitioner to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed
it appearing that no new bail bond for his provisional liberty on appeal
had been posted. Petitioner filed a Compliance essentially stating therein
that he immediately posted a new bond for his provisional liberty and that
the presiding judge of the lower court, which issued the questioned
decision, duly approved the new bond. A certified true copy of the bond
was submitted together with the Compliance.
6. The Court of Appeals nonetheless dismissed the appeal filed by the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person
petitioner for "appellant’s failure to post a new bond for his provisional arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash
liberty on appeal despite our directive, and in view of the fact that his the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of
personal bail bond posted in the lower court had already expired." the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such
Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereto seeking as when accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced (citation
its reversal. omitted).
7. On 19 February 2003, the Court of Appeals denied the MR stating Moreover, jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the instance of
that the appellant has failed to submit himself under the jurisdiction of parties, as when an accused escapes from the custody of the law, but
the court or under the custody of the law since his conviction in 1999 and continues until the case is terminated. Evidently, petitioner is correct in
that there was no valid bail bond in place when appellant took his appeal. that there is no doubt that the RTC already acquired jurisdiction over the
Issues: person of the accused petitioner – when he appeared at the arraignment
Whether or not petitioner failed to submit himself to the jurisdiction of and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged – notwithstanding the fact
the court or to the custody of the law despite the posting of the subject that he jumped bail and is now considered a fugitive.
bail bond? As to whether or not petitioner has placed himself under the custody of
the CA, alas, we cannot say the same for “being in the custody of the law
Held: signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will
2. YES. and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law
The record of the case readily reveals that several pleadings were filed by (citation omitted). Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of
the petitioner before the lower court even after the promulgation of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention."
judgment was made. Right after the promulgation of the decision in the In the case at bar, petitioner, being a fugitive, until and unless he submits
lower court, herein petitioner went to the court and posted a bail bond. himself to the custody of the law, in the manner of being under the
If the posting of the bond which was approved by the same Regional Trial jurisdiction of the courts, he cannot be granted any relief by the CA.
Court who rendered the decision subject of appeal is not yet a submission
to the jurisdiction of the court, then the respondent Hon. Court of
Appeals must have been thinking of another matter beyond the
comprehension of the petitioner and obviously outside the matters being
contemplated by law and the Rules of Court.
It should have been sufficient to state that for reasons stated in the
foregoing discussion, the question posed has now become academic.
However, to diminish the confusion brought about by ostensibly equating
the term "jurisdiction of the court (over the person of the accused)" with
that of "custody of the law", it is fundamental to differentiate the two.
The term:
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender
(citation omitted); while (the term) jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance (citation
omitted). One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to
G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015 petitioner’s MLA. It ruled that petitioner’s subsequent re-acquisition of
RENATO M. DAVID v. EDITHA A. AGBAY Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA.
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the accused Information for Falsification of Public Document was filed before the
is deemed waived by the accused when he files any pleading seeking an MTC and a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.
affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special
jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. Petitioner argued that once a natural-born Filipino citizen who had been
naturalized in another country re-acquires his citizenship under R.A.
FACTS: 9225, his Filipino citizenship is thus deemed not to have been lost
on account of said naturalization.
In 1974, petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian
citizen by naturalization. Upon their retirement, petitioner and his wife
returned to the Philippines. They purchased a lot along a beach in
Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a residential house. However, ISSUES:
they came to know that the portion where they built their house is
public land. 3. Whether petitioner may be indicted for falsification for
representing himself as a Filipino in his Public Land Application despite
In 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) over his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under the
the subject land with the Department of Environment and Natural provisions of R.A. 9225;
Resources (DENR).In the said application, petitioner indicated that he is 4. Whether the MTC properly denied petitioner’s motion for re-
a Filipino citizen. determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the accused (petitioner).
Private respondent Agbay opposed the application on the ground that
petitioner, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a HELD:
criminal complaint for falsification of public documents the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) against the petitioner. • Yes.
R.A. 9225’s (“Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)
Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the Sections 2 and 3 read:
provisions of Republic Act No. 9225.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.–It is hereby declared the policy of the State
In his defense, petitioner averred that at the time he filed his that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall
application, he had intended to re-acquire Philippine citizenship and be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the
that he had been assured by a CENRO officer that he could declare conditions of this Act.
himself as a Filipino.
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.–Any provision of law to the
The Provincial Prosecutor issued found probable cause to indict contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who
petitioner for violation of Article 172 of the RPC and recommended filing have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
of the case. Meanwhile, the CENRO issued an order rejecting citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have reacquired
Philippine citizenship upon taking an oath of allegiance to the
Republic. Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the
application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other
Section 2 declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who became reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor
foreign citizens as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
read together with Section 3, the second paragraph of which clarifies person of the accused. Custody of the law is accomplished either by
that such policy governs all cases after the new law’s effectivity. arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be
under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of
The taking of oath of allegiance is required for the categories of natural- the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a
born Filipino citizens who became citizens of a foreign country. warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the
other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his
As the new law allows dual citizenship, petitioner was able to re-acquire person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an
his Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of allegiance. accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the
custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby
Falsification of documents refers to falsification by a private individual, deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to
or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body
position, of public, private, or commercial documents. of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.

Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to
document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of the filing of said have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Seeking an affirmative
application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian citizen. While he relief in court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, constitutes
re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six months later, the voluntary appearance.
falsification was already a consummated act, the said law having no
retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is concerned. The Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused
MTC therefore did not err in finding probable cause for falsification of can invoke the processes of the court even though there is neither
public document. jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a person
invoking the special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must
• No. first submit himself to the custody of the law.
The MTC further cited lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner
accused as ground for denying petitioner’s motion for re-determination Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in filing his motion
of probable cause, as the motion was filed prior to his arrest. However, for re-determination of probable cause, the MTC clearly erred in stating
custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other that it lacked jurisdiction over his person. But RTC correctly ruled that
than an application for bail. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused MTC committed no grave abuse of discretion.
is deemed waived when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative
relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the RULING: Petition Denied. RTC decision affirmed.
court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.
Jadewell Parking vs. Lidua, Sr. and held that since cases of city ordinance violations may only be
commenced by the filing of an Information, then the two-month
Doctrine: Prescriptive Period for Crimes prescription period may only be interrupted by the filing of Informations
against respondents.
Facts: Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a private
parking operator duly authorized to operate and manage the parking Issue: Whether or not the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the
spaces in Baguio City pursuant to City Ordinance 003 2000. It is also City Prosecutor tolled the prescription period of the commission of the
authorized under Section 13 of the City Ordinance to render any motor offense charged against respondents.
vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally
parked. On May 7, 2003, respondents Edwin Ang, Benedicto Balajadia Held: No. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only
and John Doe dismantled, took and carried away the clamp attached to the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime
the left front wheel of a Mitsubishi Adventure which the private charged is involved in an ordinance. The respondent judge was correct
respondent rendered immobilized for violation of aforementioned when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211
Baguio City ordinance. Said incident resulted in the filing of cases by SCRA 277 (1992), the violation of a municipal ordinance in Rodriguez,
petitioner and respondents against each other. Petitioner filed two Rizal also featured similar facts and issues with the present case. In that
cases for robbery against respondents; on the other hand, respondent case, the offense was committed on May 11, 1990. The Complaint was
Balajadia filed a case charging the president and employees of Jadwell received on May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed with the
with usurpation of authority/grave coercion. Acting City Prosecutor Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.
Mario Anacleto Banez found probable cause to file a case of usurpation There is no distinction between the filing of the Information
of authority against petitioner. However, Prosecutor Banez found no contemplated in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and in the Rules of
probable to charge respondents in the 2 cases for robbery. On October Summary Procedure. When the representatives of the petitioner filed
2, 2003 Prosecutor Banez submitted that the acts of respondents in the Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the
removing the wheel clamps of the cars were in violation of Section 21 of prescription period was running. It continued to run until the filing of
Baguio City Ordinance No. 003-2000. Respondent Balajadia and other the Information. They had two months to file the Information and
accused filed a Motion to Quash the 2 Informations on the following institute the judicial proceedings by filing the Information with the
grounds: extinguishment of criminal action or liability due to Municipal Trial Court. The conduct of the preliminary investigation, the
prescription; failure of the Informations to state the facts that charged original charge of Robbery, and the subsequent finding of the violation
an offense; and the imposition of charges on respondents with more of the ordinance did not alter the period within which to file the
than one offense. In regarding prescription, Balajadia alleged that Information. Respondents were correct in arguing that the petitioner
according to Act. No 3326, as amended by Act No. 3763, municipal only had two months from the discovery and commission of the offense
ordinances prescribe after two months. Respondent Judge Lidua before it prescribed within which to file the Information with the
granted the Motion to Quash and dismissed the cases. He also denied Municipal Trial Court.
the MR of petitioner. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under The failure of the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is
Rule 65 with the RTC of Baguio City. Petitioner further that although unfortunate as it resulted in the dismissal of the case against the private
their informations were filed in court only on October 2, 2003, they filed respondents. It stands that the doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable to
its criminal complaint before the city prosecutor on May 23, 2003, that ordinances and their prescription period. It also upholds the necessity of
is within the prescribed period. The RTC ruled in favor of respondents filing the Information in court in order to toll the period. Zaldivia also
has this to say concerning the effects of its ruling: The Court realizes that Republic vs Conjuangco ( June 26,2012)
under the above interpretation, a crime may prescribe even if the
complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor’s office if, intentionally Doctrine: R.A. 3019 being a special law, the 10-year prescriptive period
or not, he delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings should be computed in accordance with Section 2 of Act 3326.
until it is too late. However, that possibility should not justify a
misreading of the applicable rules beyond their obvious intent as Two rules for determining when the prescriptive period shall begin to
reasonably deduced from their plain language. run
5. from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, if
such commission is known; and
6. from its discovery, if not then known, and the institution of
judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
Facts:

April 25, 1977 respondents Teodoro D. Regala, Victor P. Lazatin, Eleazar
B. Reyes, Eduardo U. Escueta and Leo J. Palma incorporated the United
Coconut Oil Mills, Inc. (UNICOM).

On August 29, 1979 the Board of Directors of the United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB) composed of respondents Eduardo M. Cojuangco,
Jr. Et al. approved Resolution 247-79 authorizing UCPB, the
Administrator of the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CII Fund), to
invest not more than P500 million from the fund in the equity of
UNICOM for the benefit of the coconut farmers.

On September 4, 1979 UNICOM increased its authorized capital stock to
10 million shares without par value.

On September 18, 1979 a new set of UNICOM directors, composed of
respondents Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. Et al. (Juan Ponce Enrile, Maria
Clara L. Lobregat, Jose R. Eleazar, Jr., Jose Concepcion, Emmanuel M.
Almeda, Iaki R. Mendezona, Teodoro D. Regala, Douglas Lu Ym, Sigfredo
Veloso, and Jaime Gandiaga) approved another amendment to
UNICOMs capitalization. This increased its authorized capital stock to
one billion shares.

About 10 years later or on March 1, 1990 the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) filed a complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act (R.A.) 3019 against respondents, the 1979 members of the UCPB the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
board of directors, before the Presidential Commission on Good proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
Government (PCGG).
The above-mentioned section provides two rules for determining when
The OSG alleged that UCPBs investment in UNICOM was manifestly and the prescriptive period shall begin to run: first, from the day of the
grossly disadvantageous to the government since UNICOM had a commission of the violation of the law, if such commission is known; and
capitalization of only P5 million and it had no track record of operation. second, from its discovery, if not then known, and the institution of
judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
About nine years later or on March 15, 1999 the Office of the Special
Prosecutor (OSP) issued a Memorandum stating that although it found Second element that the action could not have been instituted during
sufficient basis to indict respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. the 10-year period because of martial law does not apply to this case.
3019, the action has already prescribed. The last day for filing the action was, at the latest, on February 8, 1990,
about four years after martial law ended. Petitioner had known of the
The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration on the Office of the investment it now questions for a sufficiently long time yet it let those
Ombudsman action but the latter denied the same; hence, this petition. four years of the remaining period of prescription run its course before
bringing the proper action.
The Issue
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the
Whether or not respondents alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. Memorandum dated May 14, 1999 of the Office of the Ombudsman that
3019 already prescribed? Yes. dismissed on the ground of prescription the subject charge of violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against respondents Eduardo M. Cojuangco,
Ruling Jr. Et al.

Petitioner maintains that, although the charge against respondents was Note:
for violation of RA 3019, its prosecution relates to its efforts to recover Preliminarily, the Court notes that what Republic of the Philippines
the ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos and of his (petitioner) filed in this case is a petition for review on certiorari under
family and cronies. Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution Rule 45. But the remedy from an adverse resolution of the Office of the
provides that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully Ombudsman in a preliminary investigation is a special civil action of
acquired by public officials or employees is not barred by prescription, certiorari under Rule 65.
laches, or estoppel.
Still, the Court will treat this petition as one filed under Rule 65 since a
Now R.A. 3019 being a special law, the 10-year prescriptive period reading of its contents reveals that petitioner imputes grave abuse of
should be computed in accordance with Section 2 of Act 3326, which discretion and reversible jurisdictional error to the Ombudsman for
provides: dismissing the complaint. The Court has previously treated differently
labeled actions as special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 for
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the acceptable reasons such as justice, equity, and fair play.
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at
SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED, petitioner, information was immediately filed in court, respondent's alleged
vs. violation had not yet prescribed.
EDGAR C. LIM, doing business as ORIGNAMURA TRADING, respondent. Note:
Petitioner Sanrio Company Limited, a Japanese corporation, owns the Act 3326 which states:
copyright of various animated characters such as "Hello Kitty," "Little Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise
Twin Stars," "My Melody," "Tuxedo Sam" and "Zashikibuta" among provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules:
others. (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment
Its products are sold locally by its exclusive distributor, Gift Gate for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those
Incorporated (GGI) punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two
Sometime in 2001, due to the deluge of counterfeit Sanrio products, GGI years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two
asked IP Manila Associates (IPMA) to conduct a market research. years or more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any
IPMA discovered that respondent's Orignamura Trading in Tutuban other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or more, except
Center, Manila was selling imitations of petitioner's products. the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years; Provided,
On April 4, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Task- however, That all offenses against any law or part of law administered
Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall prescribe after five years.
Respondent asserted in his counter-affidavit that he committed no Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two
violation of the provisions of the IPC because he was only a retailer. months.
Respondent neither reproduced nor manufactured any of petitioner's Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
copyrighted item. He obtained his merchandise from authorized commission of the violation of the law, and if the same may not be
manufacturers of petitioner's products. known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of
Complaint was dismiss due to insufficiency of evidence. judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted
On May 3, 2005, the appellate court dismissed the petition on the against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings
ground of prescription. It based its action on Act 3326 are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. (emphasis supplied)
According to the CA, because no complaint was filed in court within two Punishment for the Offense violated:
years after the commission of the alleged violation, the offense had Section 217. Criminal Penalties. - 217.1. Any person infringing any right
already prescribed. secured by provisions of Part IV of this Act or aiding or abetting such
Issue: infringement shall be guilty of a crime punishable by:
Whether or not the crime already prescribed? No (a) Imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years plus a fine ranging
Held: from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to One hundred fifty thousand
Section 2 of Act 3326 provides that the prescriptive period for violation pesos (P150,000) for the first offense.
of special laws starts on the day such offense was committed and is
interrupted by the institution of proceedings against respondent (i.e.,
the accused).
Petitioner in this instance filed its complaint-affidavit on April 4, 2002 or
one year, ten months and four days after the NBI searched respondent's
premises and seized Sanrio merchandise therefrom. Although no
People vs. Galano Issue: Whether or not the Municipal Court of Batangas has jurisdiction
of the criminal case.
Doctrine:
• Jurisdiction of a court is determined in criminal cases by the Rationale:
allegations of the complaint or information and not by the result of Jurisdiction: Yes.
proof. Settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of a court is determined in
criminal cases by the allegations of the complaint or information and not
Facts: by the result of proof. Therefore, the Municipal Court of Batangas was
8. October 2, 1962. Juanito Limbo filed a criminal complaint for vested with lawful jurisdiction over the criminal complaint which
estafa against accused-respondent Gregorio Santos at the Municipal expressly alleged that the offense was commited “in the Municipality of
Court of Batangas. Batangas, province of Batangas” and that the proceedings therein were
9. Gregorio was arrested to answer for the charge. Upon his arrest, valid and before a competent court.
he posted a bail bond for provisional liberty. During the arraignment,
Santos pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. Prescription:
10. September 16, 1964. Santos jumped bail. As a result, his bail Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses.— The period of
bond was forfeited and the case against him was archived by the prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the
municipal court. discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or by their agents,
11. September 14. 1973 (9years later). Santos was re-arrested and and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information
the trial resumed. and shall commence to run again when the proceedings terminate
12. October 21, 1974. During the pendency of the trial, Santos filed without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably
a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Municipal Court of Batangas stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
had no territorial jurisdiction over the case showing evidence that the
crime was committed in Manila. • The period was interrupted when Santos jumped bail
13. The Municipal Court granted the motion, thus, the case was • In any event, the counting of the period of prescription should
dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction over the crime charged. have commenced again upon dismissal of the case on the ground of lack
14. November 14, 1974. Complainant Limbro re-filed the same case of jurisdiction.
in the Fiscal’s Office of Manila. A preliminary investigation was
conducted and an information was filed at the Court of First Instance of Ruling:
Manila. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal orders and remanded the
15. Santos filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription case for the continuation of trial at the CFI of Manila.
and double jeopardy.
16. December 8, 1975. Respondent judge issued an order dismissing
the criminal case on the ground that the offense charged had already
prescribed.
17. The motion for reconsideration proved futile. Hence, the
present petition.

People vs. Ocaya declares because the same is self-serving.
• Hence, this petition filed by the provincial fiscal for nullification of
Topic: Jurisdiction of the RTC respondent judge’s orders. (certiorari)

Facts: ISSUE: Whether the respondent judge’s order of dismissal is proper
• The office of the provincial fiscal of Bukidnon filed an information
dated October 13, 1977 in the court of respondent judge, charging the HELD: • Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in
three private respondents- accused (Esterlina Marapao, Leticia Marapao dismissing the case for alleged lack of jurisdiction on the mere basis of
and Diosdado Marapao) for serious physical injuries. his totally wrong notion that what governs in the filing of a physical
• “willfully unlawfully and feloneously attack, assault and use personal injury case is the medical certificate regarding the duration of treatment
violence upon one Mrs. LOLITA ARES, a mother who was then still on the and “not what the victim declares because the same is self-serving.
twelfth (12th) day from her child delivery, by then and there wrestling • It is elementary that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is
her to the ground and thereafter throwing and hitting her with a fist-size determined by the allegations of the information or criminal complaint
stone at the face thereby inflicting upon said Mrs. LOLITA ARES: and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial, much less by
lacerated wound, transverse right at about 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. in width at the trial judge's personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached
the level of the maxillary arch of the face, with contusion and swelling by the fiscal to the record of the case without hearing the parties and
all around the inflicted area which injury considerably deforms her face, their witnesses nor receiving their evidence at a proper trial. • It is
and further causing upon said Mrs. LOLITA ARES to suffer a relapse equally elementary that the mere fact that evidence presented at the
arising from her weak constitution due to her recent child delivery, trial would indicate that a lesser offense outside the trial court's
which relapse incapacitated her from performing her customary labor jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial court of its
for a period of more than thirty days.” jurisdiction which had vested in it under the allegations of the
• The medical certificate attached to the records of the case indicate information as filed since "(once) the jurisdiction attaches to the person
that the injuries suffered by Lolita Ares would require medical attention and subject matter of the litigation, the subsequent happening of
from 7-10 days and, therefore, “may be either be slight or less serious events, although they are of such a character as would have
physical injuries only” prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not
• The victim’s affidavit, however, indicates that she was incapacitated operate to oust jurisdiction already attached.
from her customary labor for more than 30 days and a prominent scar • The questioned orders of respondent judge are declared null and void.
left on the victim’s face as a deformity. The allegations in the case is remanded and ordered transferred to Branch V of the CFI below.
information stated this and the medical certificate and also the
admission of the accused Diosdado Maraca during preliminary
investigation that there is a prominent scar on her face
• Judge ordered dismissal of the case (without having heard the parties
or their witnesses, particularly the physician who issued the medical
certificate) “as the crime of slight or less physical injury is not within the
jurisdiction of the Court” and also stating that what governs in the filing
of a physical injury case is the certificate issued by the physician
regarding the duration of the treatment, and not what the victim
Guevarra vs. Almodovar the ages of 9 and 15 may be convicted of a quasi-offense under Article
GR No. 75256 Jan. 26, 1989 265 of the RPC.
• "Intent"
Nature of the case: Action for certiorari against Judge Ignacio Almodovar o Defined as: determination to do a certain things; an aim; the
of the City Court of Legaspi purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such
intent; design resolve, or determination with which a person acts
Facts: o comprises the third element of dolo as a means of committing a
• Morning of 29 October 1984: Petitioner John Philip Guevara, felony, freedom and intelligence being the other two
then 11YO, playing with bestfriendTeodoro Almine, Jr. and three other • “Discernment”, as used in Article 12(3) of the RPC
children in their backyard. Target-shooting tansan which were placed o Defined by DC in the case of People vs. Doquena (1939): mental
15-20m away with an air rifle. capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong . . .
• Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone. Caused death. • SC: discernment and intent are two different concepts, two
Fiscal exculpated Guevara due to his age and because occurrence terms should not be confused.
appeared to be an accident. o While both are products of the mental processes within a
• Victim's parents appealed to Ministry of Justice, which ordered person, the former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter
Fiscal to file case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless relates to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act.
Imprudence. o Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be
• The information read: “accused, who is over 9 years but below aware of the consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury
15 years of age and acting with discernment…” to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle. It is not correct,
therefore, to argue, as petitioner does, that since a minor above nine
Issue + Ratio: years of age but below fifteen acted with discernment, then he intended
Whether an eleven (11) year old boy could be charged with the crime such act to be done. He may negligently shoot his friend, thus did not
of homicide thru reckless imprudence intend to shoot him, and at the same time recognize the undesirable
• Petitioner: "discernment" connotes 'intent', citing People vs. result of his negligence.
Nieto where SC held that the allegation of "with intent to kill . . ." amply Held:
meets the requirement that discernment should be alleged when the - Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. Case is REMANDED to the
accused is a minor between 9 and 15 years old lower court for trial on the merits.
o Guevarra states: If discernment is the equivalent of 'with intent',
then the allegation in the information that the accused acted with
discernment and willfully unlawfully, and feloniously, operate or cause
to be fired in a reckless and imprudent manner an air rifle .22 caliber' is
an inherent contradiction tantamount to failure of the information to
allege a cause of action or constitute a legal excuse or exception.
• SC: a corollary controversy is evident here. Whether the term
"discernment", as used in Article 12(3) of RPC is synonymous with
"intent." If petitioner's argument is correct, then no minor between
Gonzales v. Abaya February 11, 2004 – The RTC issued an Ordinance declaring that “all
G.R. No. 164007 August 10, 2006 charges before the court martial against the accused…are hereby
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.: declared not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance
of the alleged crime of coup d’etat."
FACTS: Colonel Julius Magno recommended that that 29 of the officers involved
July 26, 2003 - President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo received intelligence in the Oakwood incident, including petitioners, be prosecuted before a
reports that some members of the AFP had abandoned their designated general court martial for violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an
places of assignment. She assigned the AFP and the PNP to track them. officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War and such recommendation
July 27, 2003 - More than 300 heavily armed junior officers and enlisted was approved. The AFP Judge Advocate General then directed petitioners
men of the AFP entered the premises of the Oakwood Premier Luxury to submit their answer to the charge. Instead of complying, they filed with
Apartments on Ayala Avenue, Makati City and disarmed security guards this Court the instant Petition for Prohibition praying that respondents be
and planted explosive devices around the building. The troops aired their ordered to desist from charging them with violation of Article 96 of the
grievances against the Arroyo administration, declared their withdrawal Articles of War in relation to the Oakwood incident.
of support from the Chief Executive and demanded that she resign from PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION: Petitioners maintain that since the RTC has
the Presidency. President Arroyo then issued Proc. No. 427 declaring a made a determination in its Order of February 11, 2004 that the offense
State of Rebellion and General Order No. 4 to suppress the rebellion. for violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a
Later, negotiations were made to peacefully persuade the troops to lay gentleman) of the Articles of War is not service-connected, but is
down arms and defuse the explosives. Eventually, 321 soldiers including absorbed in the crime of coup d’etat, the military tribunal cannot compel
petitioners surrendered to the authorities. them to submit to its jurisdiction.
August 5, 2003 - The DOJ filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTION: The Solicitor General, representing the
City an Information for coup d’etat against those soldiers, docketed as respondents, counters that R.A. No. 7055 specifies which offenses
Criminal Case No. 03-2784 raffled to Branch 61, consolidated with covered by the Articles of War areservice-connected namely, violations
Criminal Case No. 03-2678, involving the other accused, pending before of Articles 54 to 70, 72 to 92, and 95 to 97. As the charge against
Branch 148 of the RTC, Makati City. petitioners is violation of Article 96 which, under R.A. No. 7055 is a
August 13, 2003 - Respondent Chief of Staff issued Letter Order No. 625 service-connected offense, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the court
creating a Pre-Trial Investigation Panel tasked to determine the propriety martial.
of filing with the military tribunal charges for violations of the Articles of ISSUE: WON the RTC has Jurisdiction over the case of petitioners.
War under Commonwealth Act No. 408 HELD: NO. The RTC does not have Jurisdiction. There is no dispute that
243 (including petitioners herein) petitioners then filed with the RTC, petitioners, being officers of the AFP, are subject to military law. Pursuant
Branch 148 an Omnibus Motion praying that the said trial court assume to Article 1 (a) of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, otherwise
jurisdiction over all the charges filed with the military tribunal. They known as the Articles of War, the term "officer" is "construed to refer to
invoked Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7055. a commissioned officer."
December 12, 2003 - The Pre-Trial Investigation Panel submitted its Final Upon the other hand, Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055 reads:
Pre-Trial Investigation Report , recommending that, following the SEC. 1. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other
"doctrine of absorption," those charged with coup d’etat before the RTC persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed
should not be charged before the military tribunal for violation of the Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized
Articles of War. under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local
government ordinances, regardless of whether or not civilians are co- licentious and undisciplined military body.
accused, victims, or offended parties, which may be natural or juridical Obviously, there is no merit in petitioners’ argument that they can no
persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except when the offense, longer be charged before the court martial for violation of Article 96 of
as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected, the Articles of War because the same has been declared by the RTC in its
in which case, the offense shall be tried by court-martial, Provided, That Order of February 11, 2004 as "not service-connected, but rather
the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup d’etat," hence,
direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be triable by said court (RTC). The RTC, in making such declaration,
tried by the proper civil courts. practically amended the law which expressly vests in the court martial the
As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or offenses shall be jurisdiction over "service-connected crimes or offenses." What the law
limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and has conferred the court should not take away. It is only the Constitution
Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended. or the law that bestows jurisdiction on the court, tribunal, body or
Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055, quoted above, is clear and unambiguous. First, officer over the subject matter or nature of an action which can do
it lays down the general rule that members of the AFP and other persons so. And it is only through a constitutional amendment or legislative
subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces enactment that such act can be done. The first and fundamental duty of
Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the the courts is merely to apply the law "as they find it, not as they like it to
Revised Penal Code (like coup d’etat), other special penal laws, or local be." Evidently, such declaration by the RTC constitutes grave abuse of
ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court. Next, it provides the discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and is, therefore,
exception to the general rule, i.e., where the civil court, before void.
arraignment, has determined the offense to be service-connected, then
the offending soldier shall be tried by a court martial. Lastly, the law
states an exception to the exception, i.e., where the President of the
Philippines, in the interest of justice, directs before arraignment that any
such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil court.
The second paragraph of the same provision further identifies the
"service-connected crimes or offenses" as " limited to those defined
in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97" of the Articles
of War. Violations of these specified Articles are triable by court martial.
This delineates the jurisdiction between the civil courts and the court
martial over crimes or offenses committed by military personnel.
Such delineation of jurisdiction by R.A. No. 7055 is necessary to preserve
the peculiar nature of military justice system over military personnel
charged with service-connected offenses. The military justice system is
disciplinary in nature, aimed at achieving the highest form of discipline in
order to ensure the highest degree of military efficiency. Military law is
established not merely to enforce discipline in times of war, but also to
preserve the tranquility and security of the State in time of peace; for
there is nothing more dangerous to the public peace and safety than a
People of the Philippines and Photokina Marketing Corporation Held:
vs. 1. Rule: “Jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred
Alfredo Benipayo by the law in force at the
time of the institution of the action, unless a latter statute provides for a
G. R. No 155573; April 24, 2009 retroactive application thereof.”
2. Art. 360, RPC as amended by RA 4363: criminal and civil action for
Facts: damages in cases of WRITTEN DEFAMATION to be filed at RTC of
Consolidated petitions. province or city where it was printed and first published or where any of
First petition: the offended parties reside at the time of the commission of offense.
1. Respondent Chairman of Commission on Elections delivered a speech (Exclusive Original Jurisdiction; this includes LIBEL CASES).
on electoral problems. The same was published in the Feb 2 and 5 issues 3. Although RA 7691 was enacted to expand the jurisdiction of first level
of the Manila Bulletin. courts, since it is of general application, it cannot divest RTC's exclusive
2. Believing that the speech alludes to it, petitioner corporation filed a jurisdiction over libel cases. The latter was vested through a law of a
case of libel against the respondent. special nature.
3. During the pendency of the motion for inhibition filed by the Rule: “In case of conflicts between a general law and a special law, the
petitioner, respondent moved for the dismissal of the case on the latter should prevail regardless of the time of their enactments.
ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over his person for he is an Furthermore, implied repeals of special laws by general laws are not
impeachable officer and no criminal prosecution can be held against him favored. There has to be an express provision repealing the special law
during his incumbency. And even if a criminal prosecution is allowed, unless an absolute incompatibility between the two laws exist.
the Ombudsman should be the one to investigate him and the case 4. Admin Order No. 104-96: designated jurisdiction of LIBEL CASES to
should be filed before the Sandiganbayan. RTC having jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of the MetTC, MTCC,
4. RTC dismissed the case for having no jurisdiction. Petitioners filed MTC, MCTC.
apetition for review on Certiorari to the SC. 5. The grant to Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses committed
in relation to public office, did not divest RTC of its exclusive and original
Second petition: jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless of whether the
1. Respondent COMELEC Chairman and COMELEC Commissioner offense is committed in relation to office.
Tangcangco were guests at a talk show televised nationwide.
2. Another case for libel was filed by the petitioners for believing that Ruling: Criminal case is ordered reinstated and remanded to the
the Chairman's remark in the show was defamatory. respective RTCs for further proceedings.
3. Respondent again questioned the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor
and the RTC invoking similar arguments.
4. RTC dismissed the case for having no jurisdiction. Petitioners filed
apetition for review on Certiorari to the SC.

Issue: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the libel cases to the
exclusion of all other courts.

Samson vs Daway Issue:
G.R. Nos. 160054-55July 21, 2004 1. Whether or not The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over criminal
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: and civil cases for violation of intellectual property rights

Jurisdiction conferred by special law supersedes jurisdiction conferred by Held:
general law 1. Section 163 of the same Code states that actions (including criminal
and civil) under Sections 150, 155, 164, 166, 167, 168 and 169 shall be
Facts: brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under
1. On March 7, 2002, two informations for unfair competition under existing laws. The existing law referred to in the foregoing provision is
Section 168.3 (a), in relation to Section 170, of the Intellectual Property Section 27 of R.A. No. 166 (The Trademark Law) which provides that
Code (Republic Act No. 8293), were filed with the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction over cases for infringement of registered marks, unfair
Quezon City against petitioner Manolo P. Samson, the registered owner competition, false designation of origin and false description or
of ITTI Shoes for the selling CATERPILLAR products which are closely representation, is lodged with the Court of First Instance (now Regional
identical to and/or colorable imitations of the authentic Caterpillar Trial Court)
products and likewise using trademarks, symbols and/or designs as would
cause confusion, mistake or deception on the part of the buying public to 2. The settled rule in statutory construction is that in case of conflict
the damage and prejudice of CATERPILLAR, INC. between a general law (R.A. No. 7691) and a special law (R.A. No. 8293
2. On April 19, 2002, petitioner filed a motion to suspend arraignment and R.A. No. 166), the latter must prevail. Jurisdiction conferred by a
and other proceedings in view of the existence of an alleged prejudicial special law to Regional Trial Courts must prevail over that granted by a
question involved in Civil Case No. Q-00-41446 for unfair competition general law to Municipal Trial Courts.
pending with the same branch; and also in view of the pendency of a
petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice assailing the Chief
State Prosecutors resolution finding probable cause to charge petitioner
with unfair competition. In an Order dated August 9, 2002, the trial court
denied the motion to suspend arraignment and other proceedings.
3. On August 20, 2002, petitioner filed a twin motion to quash the
informations and motion for reconsideration of the order denying motion
to suspend, this time challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court over
the offense charged.

Petitioner’s Contention:
1. Since under Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293, the penalty of imprisonment
for unfair competition does not exceed six years, the offense is cognizable
by the Municipal Trial Courts and not by the Regional Trial Court, per R.A.
No. 7691.
2. R.A. No. 166 was expressly repealed by R.A. No. 8293.

Garcia vs Sandiganbayan in civil actions pertains only to separate actions for recovery of
G.R. No. 165835 June 22, 2005 unlawfully acquired property against President Marcos, his family, and
Facts cronies.
• Petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia was the Deputy Chief • In their Comment, respondents submit the contrary, noting that
of Staff for Comptrollership, J6, of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. the issues raised by petitioner are not novel as 17 these have been
• On 27 September 2004, Atty. Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas, Graft settled in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan which categorically ruled that
Investigation and Prosecution Officer II of the Field Investigation Office “there is no issue that jurisdiction over violations of [R.A.] 18 Nos. 3019
of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against petitioner and 1379 now rests with the Sandiganbayan.” Respondents argue 19
with public respondent Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Sec. 8, that under the Constitution and prevailing statutes, the Sandiganbayan
in relation to Sec. 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, violation of Art. is vested with authority and jurisdiction over the petition for forfeiture
183 of the Revised Penal Code, and violation of Section 52 (A)(1), (3) and under R.A. No. 1379 filed against petitioner.As petitioner falls squarely
(20) of the Civil Service Law. under the category of public positions covered by the aforestated law,
• Based on this complaint, a case for Violations 4 of R.A. No. 1379, the petition for forfeiture should be within the jurisdiction of the
Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and Sec. 8 in relation to Sec. 11 of Sandiganbayan
R.A. No. 6713, docketed as 5 Case No. OMBPC041132I, was filed against
petitioner Issue
• Petitioner’s wife Clarita, and their three sons were impleaded in Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitions for
the complaint for violation of R.A. No. 1379 insofar as they acted as forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379
conspirators, conduits, dummies and fronts of petitioner in receiving,
accumulating, using and disposing of his ill gotten wealth. Held
• On the same day, 27 October 2004, the Republic of the The seminal decision of Republic v. Sandiganbayan squarely rules on the
Philippines, acting through public respondent Office of the Ombudsman, issues raised by petitioner concerning the jurisdiction of the
filed before the Sandiganbayan, a Petition with Verified Urgent Ex Parte Sandiganbayan and the authority of the Office of the Ombudsman. the
Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against Court therein resolved the question of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan
petitioner, his wife, and three sons, seeking the forfeiture of unlawfully over violations of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 1379.
acquired properties under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 1379, as amended.
• Acting on the Republic’s prayer for issuance of a writ of In the face of the prevailing jurisprudence and the present state of
preliminary attachment, the Sandiganbayan issued the questioned statutory law on the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, petitioner’s
Resolution granting the relief prayed for. The corresponding writ of argument—that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petition
preliminary attachment was subsequently issued on 2 November 2004 for forfeiture it being “civil” in nature and the Sandiganbayan allegedly
upon the filing of a bond by the Republic. having no jurisdiction over civil actions—collapses completely. The civil
• Petitioner argues in this Petition that the Sandiganbayan is nature of an action for forfeiture was first recognized in Republic v.
without jurisdiction over the “civil action” for forfeiture of unlawfully Sandiganbayan, thus: “[T]he rule is settled that forfeiture proceedings
acquired properties under R.A. No. 1379, maintaining that such are actions in rem and, therefore, civil in nature.”
jurisdiction actually resides in the Regional Trial Courts as provided
under Sec. 2 of the law, and that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan Violations of R.A. No. 1379 are placed under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, even though the proceeding is civil in nature, since the
forfeiture of the illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty. The Ferdinand “ Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. Vs Sandiganbayan
soundness of this reasoning becomes even more obvious when we
consider that the respondent in such forfeiture proceedings is a public Facts: Sandiganbayan penned a decision declaring all the assets of
officer or employee and the violation of R.A. No. 1379 was committed Arelma, S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, forfeited
during the respondent officer or employee’s incumbency and in in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. The anti-graft court found
relation to his office. This is in line with the purpose behind the that the totality of assets and properties acquired by the Marcos
creation of the Sandiganbayan as an antigraft court—to address the spouses was manifestly and grossly disproportionate to their aggregate
urgent problem of dishonesty in public service. Following the same salaries as public officials, and that petitioners were unable to overturn
analysis, petitioner should therefore abandon his erroneous belief that the prima facie presumption of ill-gotten wealth, pursuant to Section 2
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only over petitions for forfeiture of Republic Act No. (RA) 1379. Bongbong’s contention is that
filed against President Marcos, his family and cronies. Sandiganbayan erred in granting the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment because a) the Republic had earlier stated that it will file a
separate forfeiture action regarding the assets of Arelma and b) Civil
Case No. 0141 had already terminated, and Sandiganbayan does not
possess territorial jurisdiction over the res or the Arelma proceeds,
which are held by Merrill Lynch in the United States.
Issue: Is a Separate forfeiture proceedings be instituted for the Arelma
Properties situated in New York? NO
Does the Sandiganbayan has territorial jurisdiction over the case? YES

Held: The said Petition for Forfeiture described among others, a
corporate entity by the name "Arelma, Inc.," which maintained an
account and portfolio in Merrill Lynch, New York, and which was
purportedly organized for the purpose of hiding ill-gotten wealth. The
Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 152154 affirmed the partial summary
judgment only over the Swiss deposits which the Sandiganbayan
declared as forfeited in favor of the State.

This cannot be construed as a bar to a subsequent judgment over
numerous other assets and properties expressly sought to be forfeited
in Civil Case No. 0141. Respondent Republic’s success in obtaining
summary judgment over the Swiss accounts does not mean its
preclusion from seeking partial summary judgment over a different
subject matter covered by the same petition for forfeiture. In fact, Civil
Case No. 0141 pertains to the recovery of all the assets enumerated
therein, such as (1) holding companies, agro-industrial ventures and
other investments; (2) landholdings, buildings, condominium units,
mansions; (3) New York properties; (4) bills amounting to Php Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the
27,744,535, time deposits worth Php 46.4 million, foreign currencies property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody
and jewelry seized by the United States customs authorities in Honolulu, of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in
Hawaii; (5) USD 30 million in the custody of the Central Bank in dollar- which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. In the
denominated Treasury Bills; shares of stock, private vehicles, and real latter condition, the property, though at all times within the potential
estate in the United States, among others. To subscribe to the view of power of the court, may not be in the actual custody of said court.
petitioners is to forever bar the State from recovering the assets listed
above, including the properties it had specifically identified in its
petition for forfeiture. As Sandiganbayan discussed in their Decision, the
ruling is rightly characterized as a separate judgment, and allowed by
the Rules of Court under Section 5 of Rule 36

Petitioner Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. acknowledges that "the subject matter
of the case (i.e. the power/authority to determine whether an asset may
be forfeited under R.A. 1379) is within the (Sandiganbayan’s)
jurisdiction. However, he objects to the graft court’s purported lack of
territorial jurisdiction on the theory that forfeiture is an action in rem.
He argues that the Sandiganbayan must first acquire territorial
jurisdiction over the Arelma proceeds before the judgment may be
enforced. petitioner should be reminded of his earlier insistence that
R.A. 1379 is penal, therefore petitions for forfeiture filed under this law
are actions in personam, not in rem.7 We reiterate our observations in
the Swiss Deposits case: "Petitioner Republic has the right to a speedy
disposition of this case. It would readily be apparent to a reasonable
mind that respondent Marcoses have been deliberately resorting to
every procedural device to delay the resolution hereof…The people and
the State are entitled to favorable judgment, free from vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays. In any case, we find that the
Sandiganbayan did not err in granting the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, despite the fact that the Arelma account and proceeds are
held abroad. To rule otherwise contravenes the intent of the forfeiture
law, and indirectly privileges violators who are able to hide public assets
abroad: beyond the reach of the courts and their recovery by the State.
Forfeiture proceedings, as we have already discussed exhaustively in our
Decision, are actions considered to be in the nature of proceedings in
rem or quasi in rem, such that:

BARRIGA VS SANDIGANBAYAN her official duties as municipal accountant, which are essential
• TOPIC: JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN— a public conditions for the graft court to acquire jurisdiction; that the felonies
officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of her charged are not included in Chapter11, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of RPC
official position, or even a private individual, may be liable for the hence Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the same; and her
crimes herein if such public officer or private individual conspires with position is classified as Salary Grade 24.
an accountable public officer to commit such. • Sandiganbayan denied motion of petitioner, as well as motion
FACTS: for reconsideration, holding that the ruling in Montilla vs Hilario is
• The Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion with the applicable, ie, the office of the accused must be a constitutive element
Sandiganbayan for the admission of three Amended Informations of the crime as defined in the statute. Offices in the case at bar were
charging the petitioner Dinah Barriga and Virginio Villamor, Municipal constituent elements of the crimes herein charged. Hence the petition
Accountant and Municipal Mayor of Carmen Cebu respectively, of the before the SC
crimes of malversation of funds (first Information) and illegal use of • OSG AVERS that the crimes herein charged are classified as
public funds (second and third Informations). In all three, they were crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office, which by
alleged to be in conspiracy. their nature fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; and that
• First Information: The funds were intended for payment of rolls there is no more need for Amended Informations to specifically allege
of Polyethylene pipes to be used in the Corte-Cantumog Water system intimacy between the crimes charged and the office of the accused
Project of the municipality since the said crimes can only be committed by public officers.
• Second Information: Funds illegally used represent a portion of ISSUE:
the Central Visayas Water and Sanitation Project Trust Fund intended W/N the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case
and appropriated for projects classified under Level I and III particularly RULING: YES.
construction of Deep Well and Spring Box for Level I projects and • RA 8249, amending S4 of PD 1606: Sandiganbayan has original
construction of water works system for Level III projects of specified jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes and felonies committed
barangay beneficiaries. Funds instead used for a barangay which was by public officers and employees belonging to any of those enumerated
not included as a recipient of the CVWSP Trust Fund. therein, at the time of the commission of such crimes.
• Third Information: Funds illegally used represent a portion of • S4, RA 8249: Two classes of public-related crimes
the Central Visayas Water and Sanitation Project Trust Fund intended o Those crimes/felonies in which the public office is a constituent
and appropriated for projects classified under Level I and III particularly element as defined by statute and the relation between the crime and
construction of Deep Well and Spring Box for Level I projects and the offense is such that, in a legal sense, the offense committed cannot
construction of water works system for Level III projects of specified exist without the office
barangay beneficiaries. Funds instead used for construction/expansion o Such offenses/felonies which are intimately connected with the
of Brgy Cantucong Water Supply which is a project falling under Level II public office and are perpetrated by the public officer or employee while
of the CVWSP Trust Fund. in the performance of his official functions, through improper or
• Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Informations. irregular conduct.
• PETITIONER AVERS that: under S4 of RA 8294, the • Malversation and illegal use of public funds or property both
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the crimes charged; that these belong to the first classification.
Informations did not allege the relation between the crimes charged and • The public office of accused Mun. Mayor Virginio Villamor is a
constituent element of malversation and illegal use of public funds or PEOPLE vs MONTEJO
property; his salary grade is 27; and since the Amended Informations No. L-14595, May 31, 1960
alleged that petitioner conspired with co-accused Mayor, the fact that
her position as municipal accountant is SG 24 does not mean that the Doctrine: All parties in a criminal action are entitled to a
Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction over her. Remember: a public officer reasonable opportunity to establish their respective theories;
who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of her official hence, the parties should be allowed a certain latitude in the
position, or even a private individual, may be liable for the crimes herein presentation of their evidence, lest they may be so hampered
if such public officer or private individual conspires with an accountable that the ends of justice may eventually be defeated or appear to
public officer to commit such. be defeated.
• Since municipal mayor’s salary grade is 27, that means the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over his person. Further, as it is FACTS:
established that he is in conspiracy with herein petitioner, then the Before Us is a special civic action for certiorari, with mandamus
fact that the latter’s salary grade is 24 is of no matter. and preliminary injunction, against Hon. Gregorio Montejo, as
Judge of the CFI of the cities of Zamboanga and Basila, and the
defendants in Criminal Case No. 672 of said court. In the
petition herein filed by the prosecution in the said criminal case
prays that, pending the final determination thereof, a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued enjoining respondent Judge
from proceeding with the trial of the case.

Respondents Leroy Brown, Mayor of Basilan City, Detective
Joaquin Pollisco, Patrolman Graciano Lacema, and other co-
accused where charged with murder. It was alleged in the
information filed against them that from May to June 1958, the
Mayor and his "organized groups of police patrol and civilian
commandoes" whom he "armed with pistols and high power
guns" established a camp which they called as their 'sub-police
headquarters' at Tipo-Tipo, Lamitan.

The headquarters was placed under the mayor's command,
orders, direct supervision and control, and in which his co-
defendants were stationed. It was further alleged that criminal
complaints were entertained in the sub-station/headquarters
where defendant Pollisco acted as "investigating officer and
exercised authority to order the apprehension of persons and
their detention in the camp, for days or weeks, without due
process of law and without bringing them to the proper court."
 opposing witnesses and the weight attached to their respective
Then, on or about June 4, and 5, 1958, Awalin Tebag, a Yakan, testimony. Hence, the parties should be allowed a certain
was arrested by order of Mayor Brown "without any warrant or latitude in the presentation of their evidence lest they may be
complaint filed in court". Tebag was then supposed to be so hampered that the ends of justice may eventually be
brought to and detained in the sub-station; but, on their way to defeated or appear to be defeated. The danger of leading to
the sub-station he was allegedly maltreated and tortured by the such result must be avoided, particularly in cases of the nature,
defendants as also ordered by Mayor Brown. Tebag died as a importance and significance of the one under consideration.
result of the violence done to him and to cover up his death, the
defendants made it appear that Tebag was a member of a band 2. Yes, respondent Mayor Brown committed an offense in
of armed bandits who attacked them prompting them to shoot relation to his office. A public officer commits an offense in
Tebag to death. relation to his office if he perpetrates the offense while
performing his official functions and that he could not have
During the trial of said criminal case, respondent Judge rejected committed the offense without holding his public office.
a number of direct and rebuttal evidences as these were Although the performance of the official function was improper
irrelevant to the case. or is an irregular manner, it was alleged in the information that
Mayor Brown established the sub-station and was under his
ISSUE/S: “command, supervision and control” and that his co-defendants
1. WON the lower court erred in rejecting the aforementioned were acting upon his orders. Thus, in this case, there is an
direct and rebuttal evidence for the prosecution? intimate connection between the offense and the office of the
2. WON respondent Mayor Brown is accused of an offense accused.
committed in relation to his office?

HELD:
1. Yes. Upon review of the record, we are fully satisfied that the
lower court had, not only erred, but, also, committed a grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the resolutions complained of, in
rejecting the aforementioned direct and rebuttal evidence for
the prosecution, and in not permitting the same to propound
the questions already adverted to. Although it is not possible to
determine with precision, at this stage of the proceedings, how
far said exhibits may affect the outcome of that case, it is
elemental that all parties therein are entitled to a reasonable
opportunity to establish their respective pretense. In this
connection it should be noted that, in the light of the allegations
of the amended information in said case and of the records
before us, the issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused
therein is bound to hinge heavily upon the veracity of the
SOLLER V. SANDIGANBAYAN [G.R. No. 144261-62. May 9, 2001]
Facts: Held:
6. Macabael a municipal guard, was shot and killed along the As early as Montilla vs. Hilario,[8] this Court has interpreted the
national highway at Bansud, Oriental Mindoro while driving a requirement that an offense be committed in relation to the office to
motorcycle together with petitioner Soller’s son, Vincent M. Soller. mean that the offense cannot exist without the office or that the office
a. His body was brought to a medical clinic of petitioner must be a constituent element of the crime as defined and punished in
a.i.1. Dr. Prudente Soller, the Municipal Mayor (SG 27); Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven of the Revised Penal Code (referring to
a.i.2. His wife Dr. Preciosa Soller, who is the Municipal Health Officer the crimes committed by the public officers). People vs. Montejo[9]
(SG 24) enunciated the principle that the offense must be intimately connected
b. Autopsy was conducted on the same night on the cadaver of with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the
Macabael by petitioner Dr. Preciosa Soller performance, though improper or irregular of his official functions.
7. A complaint was later filed against the petitioners by the widow The case of Republic vs. Asuncion categorically pronounced that the fact
of Macabael with the Office of the Ombudsman charging them with that offense was committed in relation to the office must be alleged in
conspiracy to mislead the investigation of the fatal shootout of the information:
Macabael by falsifying the results of the autopsy report. That the public officers or employees committed the crime in relation to
8. (2) Informations for Obstruction of Justice (Violation of P.D. their office, must, however, be alleged in the information for the
1829) were filed with the Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over a case under Section 4 (a) (2).
7. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash (denied) This allegation is necessary because of the unbending rule that
a. Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offenses charged jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the information
8. Motion for Reconsideration (denied) For this purpose what is controlling is not whether the phrase
a. Not among the functions of the mayor to conduct autopsies so committed in violation to public office appears in the information; what
that any misdeed, if indeed there was any, could not be an offense determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is the specific factual
which would put him under the jurisdiction of the court. allegation in the information that would indicate close intimacy
9. Sandiganbayan’s ruling: between the discharge of the accuseds official duties and the
a. Accused is charged for having cooperated or co-participated commission of the offense charged in order to qualify the crime as
with another public official of lower rank in the same municipality in the having been committed in relation to public office
supposed falsification of the results of an autopsy. In this case, the informations fail to allege that petitioners had
b. Accused Mayor (SG 27), is co-accused with his wife, the committed the offenses charged in relation to their offices. Neither are
Municipal Health Officer (SG 24), so that the offense attributed to the there specific allegations of facts to show the intimate
lower ranking officer elevates the entire case to this Court primarily relation/connection between the commission of the offense charged
because somebody over whom this Court has jurisdiction, the Mayor, is and the discharge of official functions of the offenders, i.e. that the
accused together with the lower ranking officer. obstruction of and apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders
Issue: was committed in relation to the office of petitioner Prudente Soller.
WON the offenses charged may be considered as committed in relation
to the office of petitioner Soller so as to vest Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction

Case: Serena vs.Sandiganbayan official functions.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion on the grounds that (1) the
Date: January 22, 2008 Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa committed by
G.R. No.: 162059 Ponente: Reyes, a public official in relation to his office according to Section 4(b) of R.A.
R.T. 8249; (2) petitioner is a public officer under Section 4 (A) (1) (g) of
Republic Act No. 8249.
Doctrine: A UP student regent, as a member of the Board of Regents of
the University of the Philippines, falls within the category of public
officials upon whom the Sandiganbayan is vested with original exclusive ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa
jurisdiction. allegedly committed by a student regent

FACTS:
Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana, a senior student of the University of HELD: YES!
the Philippines-Cebu, was appointed as the student regent of UP (term “We see no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of the
period: January 1, 2000- December 31, 2000). During her term, she and offenses included in Section 4(bB) of P.D. No. 1606. Plainly, estafa is one
her relatives registered Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. of those other felonies.” Contrary to petitioner’s view, it is PD 1606 and
(OSRFI) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of the projects not RA 3019 which provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
of OSRFI was the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman, to which R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which
the Office of the President (Joseph Estrada) allotted P15 million as the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, but rather provides that all
financial assistance. prosecutions for violation of the said law should be filed with the
The renovation project never materialized, and a complaint for Sandiganbayan. To fall under Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606, the
Malversation of Public Funds and Property was filed with the Office of the requirements are only that (a) the offense is committed by public officials
Ombudsman by the succeeding student regent and a representative of and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended,
KASAMA sa U.P. The Ombudsman later filed a case for estafa against and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.
petitioner and her brother, Jade Ian D. Serana. Petitioner UP student regent is a public officer. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D.
Petitioner moved to quash the information, claiming that the No. 1606 explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over
Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction over the offense charged or over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
her person. She contended that: controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSE CHARGED — The Sandiganbayan has no foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction over estafa, for their jurisdiction is limited to the crimes pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of
enumerated under RA 3019 and Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 (Crimes trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law,
Committed by Public Officers) of RPC. Estafa is under Crimes against petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.
Property.
JURISDICTION OVER HER PERSON — As a student regent, she was not a
public officer but a mere student who represented her peers. She also did
not receive any compensation nor had the authority to accept funds. The
crime cannot be said to have been committed in connection with her
Duncano vs Sandiganbayan
Those that fall within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are:
(1) officials of the executive branch with Salary Grade 27 or higher, and
Doctrine: RA 8249 there are two classes of offenders under the (2) officials specifically enumerated in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g),
Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. 1st are the official of executive branch with regardless of their salary grades.
SG 27 and higher ,2nd those enumerated thereon (a-g) regardless of
salary grade. -SC stated that on the bill before the ra8249 was passed(legislative
intent) , the purpose of the salary grade is to concentrate on the "big
fish" and leave the "smaller fry" to the lower court. The phrase
Facts: “otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher” qualifies “regional
director and higher” and is not intended to be separate.
-Danilo A. Duncano is, at the time material to the case, the Regional
Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Salary Grade 26 -Thus petitioner while being Regional Director but having SG 26 , is under
was charged with violation of RA 6713 failing to disclose his SALN for the jurisdiction of lower court, he being a "small fry".
2002 (Don Plus Trading, Nissan Patrol vehicle).

-prior to arraignment petitioner filed motion to dismiss with prayer to
defer warrant of arrest before sandiganbayan 2nd division. He asserted
that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction because though he is regional
director, he only has a salary grade of 26 which is below the SG 27 as
qualified by law in PD 1606 amended by RA 8249 section 4 (A) (1).

-office of the special prosecutor (OSP) argued that cited law (RA8249 sec
4 (A) (1) ) shows that the qualification as to the Salary Grade does not
refer to "Regional Director" therefore, regardless of salary grade, being
a regional director makes offender under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.

-petitioner cited Cuyco vs sandiganbayan and organo vs sandiganbayan
in his rejoinder but still the court denied instant motion to dismiss and
had let the warrant of arrest be issued.

Issue: whether or not petitioner being regional director of BIR with
salary grade of 26 is under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan pursuant to
RA 8249.

Ruling: No, "salary grade" qualifies the "regional director and higher"
Gregorio Honasan II investigation on petitioner pursuant to Section 3, Chapter I, Title III,
v. Book IV of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 in relation to P.D.
The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice No. 1275, as amended by P.D. No. 1513.
(Leo Dacera, Susan F. Dacanay, Edna A. Valenzuela and Sebastian F. - petitioner is charged with a crime that is not directly nor
Caponong, Jr.), CIDG-PNP- P/Director Eduardo Matillano, and Hon. intimately related to his public office as a Senator. The factual
Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo allegations in the complaint and the supporting affidavits are bereft of
G.R. No. 159747 April 13, 2004 the requisite nexus between petitioner's office and the acts complained
of.
Facts: • Arguments of respondent Ombudsman:
An affidavit-complaint was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) by - the DOJ Panel has full authority and jurisdiction to conduct
respondent CIDG-PNP/P Director Eduardo Matillano finding that a crime preliminary investigation over the petitioner for the reason that the
of coup d'etat was committed by military personnel who occupied crime of coup d'etat under Article No. 134-A of the Revised Penal Code
Oakwood on July 27, 2003, implicating Senator Gregorio Honasan II. (RPC) may fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only if the
The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice (DOJ same is committed "in relation to office" of petitioner, pursuant to
Panel) sent a subpoena to petitioner for preliminary investigation. Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification questioning DOJ's jurisdiction 8249.
over the case, asserting that since the imputed acts were committed in - the DOJ's concurrent authority with the OMB to conduct
relation to his public office, it is the Office of the Ombudsman, not the preliminary investigation of cases involving public officials has been
DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to conduct the corresponding preliminary recognized in Sanchez vs. Demetriou (227 SCRA 627 [1993]) and
investigation; that should the charge be filed in court, it is the incorporated in Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, that can legally take cognizance Procedure.
of the case considering that he belongs to the group of public officials
with Salary Grade 31; and praying that the proceedings be suspended Issue:
until final resolution of his motion. Whether or not respondent Department of Justice Panel of Investigators
Arguments of petitioner: has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over the charge of
- it is the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to coup d'etat against petitioner.
conduct the preliminary investigation under paragraph (1), Section 13,
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which confers upon the Office of the Held:
Ombudsman the power to investigate on its own, or on complaint by YES.
any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office • Respondent DOJ Panel is not precluded from conducting any
or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, investigation of cases against public officers involving violations of penal
improper, or inefficient. laws but if the cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
- respondent DOJ Panel is neither authorized nor deputized Sandiganbayan, then respondent Ombudsman may, in the exercise of its
under OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 to conduct the preliminary primary jurisdiction take over at any stage.
investigation involving Honasan. • The authority of respondent DOJ Panel is based not on OMB-
• Arguments of respondent DOJ Panel: DOJ Circular No. 95-001 but on the provisions of the 1987
- the DOJ has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary
Administrative Code under Chapter I, Title III, Book IV, governing the shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
DOJ, which provides: (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person,
Sec. 1. Declaration of policy - It is the declared policy of the State to any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency,
provide the government with a principal law agency which shall be both when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
its legal counsel and prosecution arm; administer the criminal justice inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may
the investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the
administration of the correctional system; … government, the investigation of such cases.
Sec. 3. Powers and Functions - To accomplish its mandate, the • For purposes of investigation and prosecution, Ombudsman
Department shall have the following powers and functions: cases involving criminal offenses may be subdivided into two classes, to
… wit: (1) those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling
(2) Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The difference between the
administer the probation and correction system; two, aside from the category of the courts wherein they are filed, is on
and Section 1 of P.D. 1275, effective April 11, 1978, to wit: the authority to investigate as distinguished from the authority to
SECTION 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and prosecute, such cases.
Control of the Secretary of Justice. – There is hereby created and • The prosecution of cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall
established a National Prosecution Service under the supervision and be under the direct exclusive control and supervision of the Office of the
control of the Secretary of Justice, to be composed of the Prosecution Ombudsman. In cases cognizable by the regular Courts, the control and
Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice and such number of supervision by the Office of the Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman
Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and City Fiscal's cases in the sense defined above.
Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily responsible • The law recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the
for the investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of Office of the Ombudsman and other investigative agencies of the
penal laws. government in the prosecution of cases cognizable by regular courts.
• Paragraph (1) of Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, viz: • The power of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses
SEC. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, involving public officers or employees is not exclusive but is concurrent
functions, and duties: with other similarly authorized agencies of the government such as the
1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or provincial, city and state prosecutors has long been settled in several
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act decisions of the Court.
or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. • Interpreting the primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman under
It does not exclude other government agencies tasked by law Section 15 (1) of the Ombudsman Act, the Court held in said case:
to investigate and prosecute cases involving public officials. If it were Under Section 15 (1) of Republic Act No. 6770 aforecited, the
the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, they would have Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
expressly declared the exclusive conferment of the power to the Sandiganbayan so that it may take over at any stage from any
Ombudsman. investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such
• Accordingly, Congress enacted R.A. 6770, otherwise known as cases. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses
"The Ombudsman Act of 1989." Section 15 thereof provides: involving public officers or employees is not exclusive but is concurrent
Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman
with other similarly authorized agencies of the government. Such offenses, aside from those enumerated under paragraphs (a) and (c), to
investigatory agencies referred to include the PCGG and the provincial fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, they must
and city prosecutors and their assistants, the state prosecutors and the have been committed by public officers or employees in relation to
judges of the municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial court. their office.
• The provision of the law has opened up the authority to conduct • In summation, the Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman
preliminary investigation of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, do
to all investigatory agencies of the government duly authorized to not give to the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses
conduct a preliminary investigation under Section 2, Rule 112 of the committed by public officers or employees. The authority of the
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure with the only qualification that the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or
Ombudsman may take over at any stage of such investigation in the employees is concurrent with other government investigating agencies
exercise of his primary jurisdiction.. such as provincial, city and state prosecutors. However, the
• The latest law on the Sandiganbayan, Sec. 1 of Pres. Decree No. Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases
1861 reads as follows: cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any stage, from any
"SECTION 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 is hereby investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such cases.
amended to read as follows: • Note: The question whether or not the offense allegedly
'SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise: committed by petitioner is one of those enumerated in the
'(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: Sandiganbayan Law that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
. . . Sandiganbayan will not be resolved in the present petition so as not to
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and pre-empt the result of the investigation being conducted by the DOJ
employees in relation to their office, including those employed in Panel as to the questions whether or not probable cause exists to
government-owned or controlled corporation, whether simple or warrant the filing of the information against the petitioner; and to which
complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is court should the information be filed considering the presence of other
higher that prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a respondents in the subject complaint.
fine of P6,000: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that offenses or felonies
mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does
not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine
of P6,000 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court."
• A perusal of the aforecited law shows that two requirements
must concur under Sec. 4 (a) (2) for an offense to fall under the
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, namely: the offense committed by the
public officer must be in relation to his office and the penalty
prescribed be higher then prision correccional or imprisonment for six
(6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00
• R.A. No. 8249 which amended Section 4, paragraph (b) of the
Sandiganbayan Law (P.D. 1861) likewise provides that for other

Consigna v. People and Sandiganbayan public officer discharging official functions when she misused such
position to be able to take out a loan from Moleta, who was misled into
petitioner capitalized on her official function to commit the crimes the belief that petitioner, as municipal treasurer, was acting on behalf of
charged. Without her position, petitioner would not have induced the municipality. There is a direct relation between the commission of
Moleta to part with her money. In the same vein, petitioner could not the crime and petitioner’s office – the latter being the very reason or
have orchestrated a scheme of issuing postdated checks meddling with consideration that led to the unwarranted benefit she gained from
the municipality’s coffers and defiling the mayor’s signature. Moleta, for which the latter suffered damages in the amount of
P320,000.00.
Facts: The inevitable conclusion is that petitioner capitalized on her official
· Silverina Consigna, the Municipal Treasurer of General Luna, Surigao function to commit the crimes charged. Without her position, petitioner
del Norte, obtained a loan from private respondent Hermelina Moleta, would not have induced Moleta to part with her money. In the same
the sum of P320,000.00, to pay for the salaries of the employees of the vein, petitioner could not have orchestrated a scheme of issuing
municipality and to construct the municipal gymnasium as the postdated checks meddling with the municipality’s coffers and defiling
municipality’s Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) had not yet arrived. the mayor’s signature.
· Petitioner issued three (3) checks as payment (130k + 130k + 60k = (2) Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 states that: “(e) Causing any undue injury to any
320k), signed by Jaime Rusillon, the incumbent mayor. party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
· Moleta demanded payment from petitioner but effort proved to be unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
futile. official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
· Moleta filed with the Sandiganbayan two (2) sets of information evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
against Consigna and Mayor. (Violation of Sec 3(e) of the anti graft and apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations
corrupt practices act [ RA 3019] AND Art. 315 of RPC [Estafa]) charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.”
· Petitioner argued that the court a quo has no jurisdiction because (2) the last sentence of the said provision is not a restrictive requirement
Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the court a which limits the application or extent of its coverage. This has long been
quo because the offense as charged can stand independently of public settled in our ruling in Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan,38 where we
office and public office is not an element of the crime. categorically declared that a prosecution for violation of Sec. 3(e) of the
· After trial, the Sandiganbayan, found petitioner guilty, but exonerated Anti-Graft Law will lie regardless of whether or not the accused public
Rusillon. officer is "charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
Issue: concessions."
(1) Wether or not, the Sandiganbayan commited grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it charged the
petitioner for “taking advantage of her official position and the
discharge of the functions as such”, when borrowing of money is not a
function of a Municipal Treasurer under the Local Government Code. (2)
Petitioner asserts that the last sentence of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 cannot
cover her.
Held:
(1) There is no doubt that petitioner, being a municipal treasurer, was a
LACSON VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY approval hereof.

Facts: Issues:
Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang,
an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies, were slain by (1) Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate the petitioners’
elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery andIntelligence Task Group right to due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution
(ABRITG). Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and as the provisions seemed to have been introduced for the
petitioner-intervenors. Sandiganbayan to continue to acquire jurisdiction over the Kuratong
Baleleng case.
Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of
the Criminal Investigation Command, that what actually transpired was (2) Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto
a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong statute.
Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano
Desiertoformed a panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. (3) Whether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the
Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation. However, Kuratong Baleleng was committed in relation to the office of the
a review board modified the panel’s finding and recommended the accused PNP officers which is essential to the determination whether
indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including the case falls within the Sandiganbayan’s or Regional Trial Court’s
herein petitioner, charged as principal, and herein petitioner- jurisdiction.
intervenors, charged as accessories. After a reinvestigation, the
Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan, RULING:
where petitioner was charged only as an accessory. 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
The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were
Sandiganbayan, asserting that under the amended informations, the presented to warrant such a declaration. Every classification made by
cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to the law is presumed reasonable and the party who challenges the law
Section 2 of R.A. 7975. They contend that the said law limited the must present proof of arbitrariness. The classification is reasonable and
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or ore of the not arbitrary when the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial
“principal accused” are government officals with Salary Grade 27 or distinction; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must
higher, or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) must apply equally to
Thus, they did not qualify under said requisites. However, pending all members of the same class; all of which are present in this case.
resolution of their motions, R.A. 8249 was approved amending the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word “principal” from Paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply “to all cases
the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of R.A. 7975. involving” certain public officials and under the transitory provision in
Section 7, to “all cases pending in any court.” Contrary to petitioner and
Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, intervenors’ argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the
including Section 7 which provides that the said law shall apply to all Kuratong Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only cover
cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in “any court.”
 EVELYN V. RODRIGUEZ, AND ANDRES ABONITA, JR., petitioners, vs.
There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. Ex post facto law, generally, SANDIGANBAYAN, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
provides retroactive effect of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not apenal law. It Acting upon an information that rampant illegal logging activities have
is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal been going on in different areas of Taytay, Palawan, a joint team
laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and composed of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB),
establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO), the
provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, as regards the Sandiganbayan’s PNP the Bantay Palawan, and the Philippine Marines confiscated freshly
jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been cut/processed ipil lumber at Sitio Maypa, Barangay Pancol, Taytay. The
declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural cutting and sawing of the lumber, which were alleged to have been
statute, one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts done under the supervision of Pancol Barangay Captain Pedro
applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. Not being a Samaniego upon orders of herein petitioner Mayor Evelyn Rodriguez
penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged and Association of Barangay Captains President Roberto Rodriguez,
as unconstitutional. were without proper permit or license.
Due to the unavailability of trucks to haul all the lumber to Puerto
In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is said to have been Princesa for safekeeping, some were hauled inside the Rural Agriculture
committed in relation to the office if it is intimately connected with the Center (RAC) Compound of Taytay and left under the custody of 2nd Lt.
office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance Ernan Libao.
of his official functions. Such intimate relation must be alleged in the On September 25, 1997, Barangay Captain Rodriguez appeared at the
information which is essential in determining the jurisdiction of the RAC Compound demanding the release of the lumber by presenting a
Sandiganbayan. However, upon examination of the amended letter-request addressed to the CENRO to salvage old cut timber, duly
information, there was no specific allegation of facts that the shooting indorsed by Mayor Rodriguez. As the request did not bear the approval
of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the of the CENRO, it was denied. AGAIN, Pancol Barangay Captain
discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the Samaniego and the other herein petitioner, Igang Barangay Captain
amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested Abonita, Jr., went to the RAC Compound upon orders of Mayor
and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their Rodriguez to haul the lumber to the Municipal Hall, but the officer-in-
custody. The stringent requirement that the charge set forth with such charge refused to release the same without the advice of EIIB
particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the authorities. On even date, acting upon the orders of Mayor Rodriguez,
accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was not Barangay Captain Abonita returned to the RAC Compound
established. accompanied by two fully armed policemen who then and there
forcibly took possession, hauled, and transferred the lumber to the
Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the Municipal Hall of Taytay.
charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official On November 7, 1996, Enrique A. Cuyos, Sr. of the EIIB, Region IV-A,
functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject Palawan filed complaints for robbery and violation of Section 1(b), P.D.
criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive No. 1829 (DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND
original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS) against petitioners Mayor
Sandiganbayan. Rodriguez and Barangay Captain Abonita before the Provincial
Prosecution Office of Palawan.
 amended information, and ordered the arraignment of petitioners on
By Resolution of February 18, 1997, the Deputized Ombudsman January 17, 2000.
Investigator recommended the filing of an information against On January 14, 2000, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss the
petitioners for violation of Section 1(b), P.D. No. 1829,and the second amended information.
forwarding of the records of the case to the Office of the Ombudsman- During the scheduled arraignment of petitioners on January 17, 2000,
Luzon for review and further proceedings, petitioner Mayor Rodriguez the Sandiganbayan issued in open court the assailed separate orders
being a public officer and the charge against her being work-connected. denying petitioners motion to quash the second amended
A warrant of arrest was accordingly issued against petitioners on information, denying the motion to defer arraignment, and entering a
December 14, 1998. Before the 1st Division of the Sandiganbayan, plea of not guilty for both accused herein petitioners, which orders
petitioner Mayor Rodriguez voluntarily surrendered and posted a cash petitioners allege have been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
bond on January 4, 1999, as did Barangay Captain Abonita on January Petitioners argue that the pendency of the preliminary investigation of
29, 1999. On January 27, 1999, petitioners filed a Motion to Defer the case which dragged for almost three years is unreasonable or
Arraignment, they having filed on even date a Motion to Quash. unjustifiable and violates their constitutional rights as accused to due
During the scheduled arraignment on February 26, 1999, the special process resulting to an inordinate delay in bringing the case to trial,
prosecutor moved to defer the arraignment as recommended changes which is a ground for dismissal of the information under Section 13, in
in the information were not yet acted upon by the Ombudsman. relation to Section 7 of R.A. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act of 1998) citing
Without objection from petitioners counsel, the arraignment was Tatad v. Sandiganbayan.
reset to April 8, 1999. Petitioners likewise argue that the simultaneous filing by the
In the meantime, the special prosecutor filed on April 6, 1999 an Ombudsman of two informations against them, one before the
opposition to petitioners Motion to Quash. Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 25065), and the other before the
Subsequently, the Sandiganbayan, acting upon a Motion to Admit Regional Trial Court in Puerto Princesa City (Criminal Case No. 14959),
Information which was filed by the special prosecutor, admitted the involving the same subject matter constitutes forum shopping which is
amended information by Order of April 8, 1999. expressly prohibited under the Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-
Petitioners filed on April 26, 1999 a Motion to Quash the amended 91 directing the summary dismissal of multiple complaints or charges,
information, to which motion the special prosecutor filed a and necessarily places both of them in double danger of conviction and
comment/opposition on June 9, 1999, explaining that the belated filing punishment for the same offense.
thereof was due to the transfer of the records of the Office of the Petitioners additionally question the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
Special Prosecutor to its new office at the Sandiganbayan Centennial they arguing that they are not tasked with the enforcement and
Building in Quezon City. implementation of P.D. No. 705 (REVISED FORESTRY CODE OF THE
Thereafter or on June 28, 1999, the special prosecutor filed another Ex- PHILIPPINES) as neither of them are law enforcement officers or
parte Motion to Admit Amended Information which was set for hearing prosecutors but are mere executive officials of their respective local
on November 25, 1999. The scheduled hearing on November 25, 1999 government units with entirely different official functions and, as such,
was, however, cancelled and reset to December 3, 1999 upon urgent the accusation against them is not in relation to their office. Petitioners
motion by petitioners counsel upon the ground that on said date, he thus conclude that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the
needed to appear before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong. subject matter of the case.
By Order of December 3, 1999, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion
to admit amended information, denied the motion to quash the Issue: 1. Whether or not there is an inordinate delay which could be a
ground for the dismissal of the case. February 24, 1999, then, if there is any case to be dismissed for forum
2. Did the Ombudsman commit forum shopping by filing the same shopping, that case should be the one before the Regional trial Court, as
information before the Sandiganbayan and the Regional Trial Court of it was the second action filed.
Puerto Princesa?
3. Does Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the case? 3. Yes! At all events, Republic Act 8249, which amended Presidential
Decree No. 1606, provides that as long as one (or more) of the accused
Ruling: is an official of the executive branch occupying position otherwise
1. None. From the records of the case at bar, it is gathered that the classified as Grade 27 and higher of the Compensation and Position
Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan took only three months, from Classification Act of 1989, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive
November 7, 1996 to February 18, 1997, to come up with its resolution original jurisdiction over offenses or felonies committed by public
finding probable cause against petitioners. The Deputy Ombudsman for officials whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by
Luzon took eight months to review the case and come up with the joint the public officials and employees in relation to their office.(Emphasis
review action on October 19, 1998. On the other hand, the Office of the and underscoring supplied)
Ombudsman acted on the case for around two months. Considering that For purposes of vesting jurisdiction with the Sandiganbayan, the crux of
the records were passed upon by three offices, the period of preliminary the issue is whether petitioner Mayor Rodriguez, who holds a position of
investigation, which did not exceed two years, cannot be deemed to Grade 27 under the Local Government Code of 1991, committed the
have violated petitioners constitutionally guaranteed rights to offense charged in relation to her office.
procedural due process and to a speedy disposition of cases. In Montilla v. Hilario, this Court laid down the principle that for an
In further pressing for the dismissal of the case, petitioners cite Sections offense to be committed in relation to the office, the relation between
7 and 13 of R.A. 8493, averring that the unreasonable delay in bringing the crime and the office must be direct and not accidental, in that in the
them to arraignment is a ground for the dismissal of the case, they legal sense, the offense can not exist without the office.
having been arraigned only on January 17, 2000, after several and As an exception to Montilla, this Court, in People v. Montejo, held that
repeated amendments of the information. although public office is not an element of an offense charged, as long
The records show, however, that it was on account of petitioners as the offense charged in the information is intimately connected with
continuous filing of motions that the arraignment was deferred. the office and is alleged to have been perpetrated while the accused
On the claim of petitioners that the Sandiganbayan should be faulted for was in the performance, though improper or irregular, of his official
granting the repeated amendments of the information by the functions, there being no personal motive to commit the crime and had
Ombudsman, suffice it to state that an information may be amended in the accused would not have committed it had he not held the aforesaid
form or in substance without leave of court at any time before an office, the accused is held to have been indicted for an offense
accused enters his plea. committed in relation to his office
2. No. Assuming arguendo that indeed the same information for In the present case, public office is not an essential element of the
violation of Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829 was also filed before the Regional offense of obstruction of justice under Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829. The
Trial Court of Puerto Princesa, Palawan, then as the People by the Office circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense alleged to
of the Ombudsman through the Special Prosecutor contends in its have been committed by petitioner Rodriguez are such, however, that
Memorandum, since the Information in Criminal Case No. 25065 was the offense may not have been committed had said petitioner not held
filed with the Sandiganbayan on December 8, 1988, while the the office of the mayor. As found during the preliminary investigation,
information before the regional Trial Court was allegedly filed on petitioner Rodriguez, in the course of her duty as Mayor, who is tasked
to exercise general and operational control and supervision over the Sanchez v. Demetriou
local police forces, used her influence, authority and office to call and

command members of the municipal police of Taytay to haul and
transfer the lumber which was still subject of an investigation for Facts: Mayor Antonio Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna, along with several
violation of P.D. 705. other persons, was charged with the rape and killing of Mary Eileen
What determines the jurisdiction of a court is the nature of the action Sarmenta. The Panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice
pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the information. The conducted a preliminary investigation of the case, as lead by Atty.
averment in the information that petitioner Rodriguez, as municipal Panelo. Seven informations charging the petitioner were filed in the RTC
mayor, took advantage of her office and caused the hauling of the of Calamba. However, due to the heated atmosphere in the venue, and
lumber to the municipal hall to obstruct the investigation of the case for as to avoid the miscarriage of justice, the informations were transferred
violation of P.D. 705 effectively vested jurisdiction over the offense on to RTC of Pasig in lieu of the order of the Secretary of Justice. Petitioner
the Sandiganbayan. Sanchez filed a motion to quash the informations on the ground that
<< There being no flaw or infirmity then in the amended information, since he is a public officer, he can only be tried for the offense only by
respondent Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion the Sandiganbayan.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order of January
17, 2000, denying petitioners motion to quash.
Issue: W/N The case can only be taken cognisance of by Sandiganbayan
The orders of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to defer
arraignment and entering a plea of not guilty for petitioners in light of
their refusal to plead were accordingly rendered without any grave Held: No. It was not alleged in the information that the crime committed
abuse of discretion. >> was in relation and intimately connected to public office. The crime can
exist without the office, as such is not a constitutive element of the
crime. Since the said crime is an ordinary offense, the same can be taken
cognisance of the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan.















Ludwig H. Adaza v. Sandiganbayan and People and then, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, falsify a public document,
GR 154886 July 28, 2005 namely Disbursement Voucher No. B-1019707309 of the DPWH 1st
Engineering District, Dipolog City, by counterfeiting therein the
Doctrine: Jurisdiction of SB is determined by the offender's public office signature of Felix Mejorada when in truth and in fact, as the accused
being intimately connected with the offense charged or is used to well knew, Felix Mejorada did not affix his signature on the document
facilitate the commission of said offense, and the same is properly and did not authorize the accused to affix Mejorada’s signature therein.
alleged in the information
By Decision of June 19, 2002, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty
Facts: DPWH awarded Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) of in the first case, and acquitted him and his wife Aristela in the second
Manawah National High School (MNHS) a contract for the construction case for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner now questions the
of a school building, worth Php 111,319.50, in Manawan, Jose Dalman. jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioner Ludwig H. Adaza (LA) was municipal mayor of Jose Dalman.
Issue: WON Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the case based on
PTA failed to receive the last installment payment for the construction the Information filed.
worth Php 20,847.17. Thus, PTA President Felix Mejorada (FM) verified
with Hazel Peñaranda (HP), Cashier II of the 1st Engineering District of Held: No. For an offense to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction
Zamboanga Del Norte whether the check for the last installment of the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
aforementioned had been released. offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten
Records indicate that the check was released to LA. However, the wealth), (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
signature on the disbursement voucher for payment to FM has not been Code (the law on bribery), (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
signed by FM, and FM noticed that the signature of LA was also affixed issued in 1986 (sequestration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies
on the voucher. The check also contains the forged signature of FM and whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender
another person who is the wife of LA. committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or
employee holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph A of
Upon further investigation, it was found that the check was allegedly Section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.
encashed by the wife of petitioner. FM filed a complaint to the Office of
the Ombudsman which later found probable cause against LA and his For an offense to be committed in relation to the office, the relation
wife. Two cases were filed by the Ombudsman, the Information of the between the crime and the office must be direct and not accidental.
first one reads as follows:
It does not thus suffice to merely allege in the information that the
That sometime on or about 18 July 1997, or shortly subsequent thereto, crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office or
in Dipolog City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable that he took advantage of his position as these are conclusions of law.
Court, the accused Ludwig Adaza, a public officer being then the Mayor The specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate
with salary grade 27 of Jose Dalman, Zamboanga del Norte, while in the the close intimacy between the discharge of the offender’s official
performance of his official duties, committing the offense in relation to duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify
his official function and taking advantage of his public position, did there the crime as having been committed in relation to public office, are
controlling.

Although herein petitioner was described in the information as "a public
officer being then the Mayor with salary grade 27 of Jose Dalman,
Zamboanga del Norte," there was no allegation showing that the act of
falsification of public document attributed to him was intimately
connected to the duties of his office as mayor to bring the case within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Neither was there any allegation
to show how he made use of his position as mayor to facilitate the
commission of the crimes charged. The information merely alleges that
petitioner falsified the disbursement voucher by counterfeiting therein
the signature of Mejorada. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction,
it is this allegation that is controlling, not the evidence presented by the
prosecution during the trial.

Clearly therefore, as the alleged falsification was not an offense
committed in relation to the office of the accused, it did not come under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It follows that all its acts in the
instant case are null and void ab initio.

***There is a brief discussion regarding jurisdiction of SB in relation to
Art. 172 par. 1 and Art. 171 par. 1. In essence, SC stated that
“committed in relation to the offender's office” is distinct from the
concept of “taking advantage of one's position” as provided in 171 and
172 of RPC – that the jurisdiction of SB is determined by the offender's
public office being intimately connected with the offense charged or is
used to facilitate the commission of said offense, and the same is
properly alleged in the information; While the element of “taking
advantage of one's position” under RPC is not to determine the
jurisdiction of SB in the present case, but whether petitioner is liable at
all from the acts committed.

Hence, SB has no jurisdiction but prosecution not precluded from filing
the appropriate charge against petitioner in the proper court.

Petition is GRANTED.