1.

Subido vs Sandiganbayan

Facts:

Petitioners were charged with Arbitrary Detention

defined and penalized by Article 124 of the RPC.

During the arraignment however, petitioners filed a

Motion to Quash contending that the Sandiganbayan
had no jurisdiction over both the offense charged and
the persons of the accused.

Prosecution filed its Opposition to the Motion to

Quash contending that the basis of the
Sangdiganbayan’s is the position of the accused in the
government service when the offense charged was
committed and not the nature of the offense
charged… The fact then that accused Subido was
already a private individual was of no moment.

It further reiterated that the basis of the

Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over the case was the
position of the accused when the crime was
committed, not when the information was filed.

The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioners’ Motion to

Quash; hence this special civil action

Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan has

jurisdiction over the offense charged and the
person of the accused. YES

Ruling:

The petitioners overlook the fact that for purposes of

Sec 4 PD No. 1606, as amended, the reckoning point
is the time of the commission of the crime.

Petitioners’ invocation of the prohibition against the

retroactivity of penal laws is misplaced. Simply put,
RA No. 7975 is not a penal law. RA 7975 is clearly a
procedural law.

All told, as a procedural and curative statute, RA

7975 may validly be given retroactive effect, there
being no impairment of contractual or vested rights.
2. Miranda vs Tuliao – Recits by Tungol General rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Facts: court. (voluntary appearance) Pico case

Two burnt cadavers were discovered and were later Exception: (special appearance)
discovered as the dead bodies of Vicente Bauzon and (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of
Elizer Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
Tuliao.
(2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on
Two informations for murder were filed against the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of
several police officers, namely: SPO1 Marzan, SPO1 the accused;
Agustin, SPO2 Micu, SPO2 Maderal, SPO4 Ramirez
in the RTC of Santiago City. (3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest;

The venue was later transferred to Manila. Manila It is incongruous to grant bail to one who is free, it is
RTC convicted all of the accused and sentenced them likewise incongruous to require one to surrender his
to 2 counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 freedom before asserting it. Demanding that due
Maderal who was still at large at that time. process in the deprivation of liberty must come before
its taking and not after.
Sometime later SPO2 Maderal was arrested and
executed a sworn confession and identified Whether Judge Anghad committed grave abuse of
petitioners Miranda, Ocon, and Dalmacio as the discretion.
persons responsible for the deaths of Buazon and Quashing a warrant of arrest based on a subsequently
Tuliao. filed petition for review with the Secretary of Justice
and based on doubts engendered by the political
Thereafter, petitioners filed an urgent motion to climate constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate,
and to recall and/or quash the warrants of arrest. Dismissing a criminal case on the basis of a decision
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and of this Court in another case with different accused
denied the motion stating that the court did not constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
acquire jurisdiction over their persons.
A decision even of this Court, acquitting the accused
Judge Anghad, the new presiding Judge reversed the therein of a crime cannot be the basis of the dismissal
Joint Order of Judge Tumaliuan and ordered the of criminal case against different accused for the
cancellation of the warrants of arrest against all same time.
petitioners.
There is no double jeopardy in the reinstatement of a
CA granted Tuliao’s petition for CMP and ordered criminal case dismissed before arraignment. Double
the reinstatement of the criminal cases. jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused has
not been arraigned and it was upon his express
Whether an accused cannot seek any judicial relief motion that the case was dismissed.
if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction
of the court.
Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest
requires neither jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, nor custody of law over the body of the
accused.
3. Cojuangco vs Sandiganbayan

Facts:

Criminal Case No. 22018 is entitled People vs Whether respondent Sandiganbayan could still
Cojuagco, Jr. It is an offshoot of a complaint filed exercise Jurisdiction over the petitioner and
by the OSG before the Presidential Commission proceed with the trial of the case. YES
on Good Government (PCGG) against the former
Administrator of the Philippine Coconut It is a well-settled rule that the giving or posting of
Authority. bail by the accused is tantamount to submission of
his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
In said complainy, the respondents were charged
for having conspired and confederated together Conceding again that the warrant issued in this
and taking undue advantage of their public case was void for the reason that no probable
positions and/or using their powers, authority, cause was found by the court before issuing it, the
influence with Former President Marcos and defendant waived all his rights to object to the
former First Lady Imelda Marcos without same by appearing and giving bond.
authority.
By posting bail, herein petitioner cannot claim
Subsequently, however this Court ruled that all exemption from the effect of being subject to the
proceedings in the preliminary investigation jurisdiction of respondent court. While petitioner
conducted by the PCGG were null and void and has exerted efforts to continue disputing the
the PCGG was directed to transmit the complaints validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest
and records of the case to the Office of the despite his posting bail, his claim has been
Ombudsman for appropriate action. negated when he himself invoked the jurisdiction
of respondent court through the filing of various
Thereafter, the panel of investigators motions that sought other affirmative reliefs.
recommended the filing of an information for
violation of Sec 3(e) of RA No. 3019, as amended, Verily, petitioner's participation in the proceedings
against herein petitioner and five other before the Sandiganbayan was not confined to his
respondents. opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest
but also covered other matters which called for
Hence, the present petition. respondent court's exercise of its jurisdiction.
Petitioner may not be heard now to deny said
Issues: court's jurisdiction over him. Nor can we ignore
the long line of precedents declaring that where
Whether the warrant of arrest issued by the accused had posted bail, as required, to obtain
respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void, or his provisional liberty, "it becomes futile to assail
should now be lifted if initially valid. YES the validity of the issuance of the warrants of
arrest."
The respondent court failed to abide by the
constitutional mandate of personally determining Whether the petitioner’s basic rights to due
the existence of probable cause before issuing a process, speedy trial, and speedy disposition of
warrant of arrest. For the two cited documents the case have been violated as to warrant
(Resolution by the Panel of Investigators of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 22018. YES
Office of the Ombudsman and the Memorandum
from the Office of the Special Prosecutor denying The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact
the existence of a prejudicial question) were the that structural reorganizations and the ever
product of somebody else’s determination, increasing case load of courts have adversely
insufficient to support a finding of probable cause affected the speedy disposition of the cases
by the Sandiganbayan. Hence, the warrant of pending before them. However, in the instant case,
arrest issued by respondent court in palpably the Court finds such delay is far from excusable.
invalid.
Considering that the Information failed to allege the
venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360,
the Court finds that the RTC of Iloilo City had no
jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision
convicting petitioners of the crime of libel should be
4. Foz vs People set aside for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to
its filing with the court of competent jurisdiction.
Facts:

Petitioners Foz Jr and Fajardo were charged with the

crime of libel wherein said Dr. Portigo was portrayed
wanting in high sense of professional integrity, trust,
and responsibility expected of him as a physician.

Upon being arraigned petitioners pleaded not guilty to

the crime charged, thereafter trial ensued. RTC found
petitioners guilty as charged.

Motion for Recon denied and the CA affirmed in toto

the decision of the RTC.

Issue: Whether the RTC of Iloilo City had

jurisdiction over the offense of libel charged in the
October 17, 1994 Information. NO

Ruling:
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court over the
criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information. And once it is so shown,
the court may validly take cognizance of the case.

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended

provides that a private individual may also file the
libel case in the RTC of the province where he
actually resided at the time of the commission of the
offense.

The Information filed against petitioners failed to

allege the residence of Dr. Portigo. While the
Information alleges that "Dr. Edgar Portigo is a
physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City",
such allegation did not clearly and positively indicate
that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time
of the commission of the offense. It is possible that
Dr. Portigo was actually residing in another place.

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court over a

criminal case is determined by the allegations of the
complaint or information, and the offense must have
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients
took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court.
GR: Strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of
courts.
EXC: When cases brought before the appellate courts
do not involve factual but purely legal questions.

5. Bonifacio vs RTC In the present case, the substantive issue calls for the
Court's exercise of its discretionary authority, by way
Facts: of exception, in order to abbreviate the review
process as petitioners raise a pure question of law
Private respondent, Gimenez, on behalf of the involving jurisdiction in criminal complaints for libel
Yuchengco Family filed a criminal complaint of libel under Article 360 of the RPC — whether the
before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office against Amended Information is sufficient to sustain a charge
members of the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition for written defamation in light of the requirements
(PEPCI) under Article 360 of the RPC,

PEPCI appears to have been formed by a large group It becomes clear that the venue of libel cases where
of disgruntled palnholders of Pacific Plans, Inc. (PPI) the complainant is a private individual is limited to
– a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Pacific Life only either of two places, namely:
Assurance Corporation, also owned by the 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time
Yuchengco Group of Companies. of the commission of the offense; or
2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed
It was alleged that PEPCI also owned, controlled, and and first published.
moderated on the Internet a blogspot that were
accessible to the public. The blogspots said to contain The Amended Information in the present case opted
highly derogatory statements and false accusations, to lay the venue by availing of the second. Thus, it
relentlessly attacking the Yuchengco Family. stated that the offending article "was first published
and accessed by the private complainant in Makati
Therafter, the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office, City." In other words, it considered the phrase to be
finding probable cause, filed 13 separate Informations equivalent to the requisite allegation of printing and
of libel. first publication.
Several of the accused for filed a petition for review
to the Secretary of Justice who then reversed the It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos
finding of probable cause and accordingly directed that would ensue in situations where the website's
the withdrawal of the informations for libel filed in author or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts
court. messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in
the Philippines that the private complainant may have
Meanwhile, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on the allegedly accessed the offending website.
grounds that the Makati RTC failed to vest
jurisdiction; where, the acts complained are not Whether grave abuse of discretion attended the
punishable by law since internet libel is not covered public respondent’s admission of the Amended
by Article 353 of the RPC. Information. YES

Next, Makati RTC found that the Information lacked In fine, the public respondent committed grave abuse
any allegations that the offended parties were actually of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to quash
residing in Makati at the time of the commission of Amended Information.
the offense but later ordered the public prosecutor to
amend the Information to cure the defect of want of
venue.

Issues:

Whether petitioners violated the rule on hierarchy

of courts to thus render the petition dismissible;
NO
7. Macasaet vs People Issue:

Facts: Whether the RTC of Quezon City has territorial

jurisdiction over the crime charged. NO
Petitioners were charged with the crime of libel
before the Quezon City RTC (publicly impugning a In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue
crime, vice or defect and causing in view of their is jurisdictional. Thus, the place where the crime was
publication, discredit, and contempt upon the person committed determines not only the venue of the
of said Joey Trinidad). action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.

During the arraignment, petitioners refused to enter The law however is more particular in libel cases.
any plea and so the TC entered a plea of not guilty be
entered into the records on their behalf. In the case at bar, private respondent was a private
citizen at the time of the publication of the alleged
Thereafter, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the libelous article, hence, he could only file his libel suit
libel case on the ground that the trial court did not in the City of Manila where Abante was first
have jurisdiction over the offense charged. According published or in the province or city where he actually
to petitioners, as the information discloses that the resided at the time the purported libelous article was
residence of private respondent was in Marikina, thus printed.
the Quezon RTC did not have jurisdiction over the
case. A perusal, however, of the information involved in
this case easily reveals that the allegations contained
During the hearing, the trial court received and therein are utterly insufficient to vest jurisdiction on
marked 2 barangay certifications and page 4 of the the RTC of Quezon City. Other than perfunctorily
information stating the address of private respondent stating "Quezon City" at the beginning of the
to be in Marikina City. information, the assistant city prosecutor who
prepared the information did not bother to indicate
Private respondent contended that the certification whether the jurisdiction of RTC Quezon City was
was issued after he had already moved out of the invoked either because Abante was printed in that
apartment unit he was renting in Quezon City. place or private respondent was a resident of said city
at the time the claimed libelous article came out.
The TC dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction.
It noted that although the information alleged the As these matters deal with the fundamental issue of
venue of this case falls within the jurisdiction of the court's jurisdiction, Article 360 of the Revised
Quezon City, evidence submitted for its consideration Penal Code, as amended, mandates that either one of
indicated otherwise. these statements must be alleged in the information
itself and the absence of both from the very face of
In the appeal to the CA, it reversed and set aside the the information renders the latter fatally defective.
TC’s conclusion and ordered the remand of the case
to the court a quo for further proceedings. When does the jurisdiction of TC end and that of
the CA commence? The court loses jurisdiction over
In this case, the defect appearing on the original the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in
complaint was subsequently cured by his due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of
supplemental-affidavit submitted during the the other parties.
preliminary investigation of the case.
Applied to the case at bar, we deem it proper that the The jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of the
notice of appeal was filed by the private and the case must be determined, not by the penalty for the
public prosecutors before the trial court. The Rules physical injuries charged but by the fine imposable
cannot be any clearer: until the filing of the last notice for the damage to property resulting from reckless
of appeal and the expiration of the period to perfect imprudence.
an appeal by all the parties, the lower court still has
jurisdiction over the case. Since the maximum fine imposable in the present
It is only after the occurrence of these two incidents case is P54,000.00, and the maximum imprisonment
when the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals begins imposable is six (6) years, clearly, the criminal charge
and at which time the OSG is supposed to take charge involved falls outside the jurisdiction of the
of the case on behalf of the government. Municipal Trial Court and consequently within the
8. Cuyos vs Garcia jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of San
Fernando, Pampanga.
Facts:
Petitioner Alfredo Cuyos was charged with homicide
with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to
property, through reckless imprudence. Cuyos was a
driver of a cargo truck which had collided with a
Volkswagen automobile in a vehicular accident,
killing 1 and injuring 4.

Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty at his

arraignment but before trial could commence, Cuyos
filed a Motion to Remand the Case to the Court of
First Instance alleging lack of jurisdiction over the
case on the part of the Municipal Court.

Municipal Court judge denied the Motion to Transfer.

Hence the present Petition for Certiorari, assailing the
jurisdiction of the respondent court to try the criminal
case against petitioner on the merits.

Issue: Whether the respondent Municipal Court

of San Fernando, Pampanga has jurisdiction to try
the criminal case against petitioner. NO

Ruling:

In complex crimes, it is not uncommon that one

constitutive offense carries with it an afflictive
penalty while the other or other constitutive offenses
carry with them only a correctional or even a light
penalty. Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime
must logically be lodged with the trial court having
jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable on an offense forming part of the
complex crime.

A complex crime must be prosecuted integrally, as it

were, and not split into its component offenses and
the latter made the subject of multiple informations
possibly brought in different courts. This is the thrust
of our case law on the matter.
Ombudsman opposed the motion, stating that despite
Serana’s protestations, she was a public officer. As a
member of the BOR, she had the general powers of
administration and exercised the corporate powers of
UP. Where, compensation is not an essential part of
public office.

The Sandiganbayan denied Serana’s petition and

ruled in favor of the Ombudsman.

9. Serana vs Sandiganbayan
Issue:
Facts: Whether the Sandiganbayan can try a government
scholar, along with her brother, of swindling
Petitioner, Hannah Serana was a senior student of government funds. YES
UP-Cebu and thus a government scholar. She was
appointed by then President Estrada as a student Her claim has no basis in law. It is P.D. No. 1606 , as
regent of UP to serve a one-year term. amended, rather than R.A. No. 3019, as amended,
that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Thereafter, Serana with her siblings and relatives A brief legislative history of the statute creating the
registered with the SEC the Office of the Student Sandiganbayan is in order.
Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSFRI). One of the projects
of the OSFRI was the renovation of the Vinzons Hall The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486,
Annex to which Estrada gave 15 Miliion in financial promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos
assistance. on June 11, 1978. It was promulgated to attain the
highest norms of official conduct required of public
The renovation of Vinzons Hall annex failed to officers and employees, based on the concept that
materialize. The succeeding stuent regent public officers and employees shall serve with the
consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
Public Funds and Property with the Office of the efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to
Ombudsman. the people.

The Ombudsman, after due investigation, found Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of
probable cause to indict Serana and her brother Jade estafa.
for estafa.
Relying on Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, petitioner
Serana moved to quash the information claiming that contends that estafa is not among those crimes
the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. We note that in
over the offense charged or over her person, in her hoisting this argument, petitioner isolated the first
capacity as UP student regent. She contends that the paragraph of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, without
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crime of regard to the succeeding paragraphs of the said
estafa. provision. The rule is well-established in this
jurisdiction that statutes should receive a sensible
Petitioner likewise posited that the Sandiganbayan construction so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd
had no jurisdiction over her person. As a student conclusion.
regent, she was not a public officer since she merely
represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents Petitioner UP student regent is a public officer.
who held their positions in an ex officio capacity. She
added that she was a simple student and did not P.D. No. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan
receive any salary as a student regent. with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees,
or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this 1) Falsification of a public document under the RPC
category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
performs functions similar to those of a board of pursuant to Sec 4 of RA 8249.
trustees of a non-stock corporation.
Thus, Pactolin's argument about being deprived of his
Moreover, it is well established that compensation is right to be informed of the charges against him when
not an essential element of public office. At most, it is the Sandiganbayan convicted him as a private person
merely incidental to the public office. under Art. 172, is baseless.

The offense charged was committed in relation to The headings in italics of the two articles are not
public office, according to the Information AND controlling. What is controlling is not the title of the
Source of funds is a defense that should be raised complaint, or the designation of the offense charged
during trial on the merits. or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated,
but the description of the crime charged and the
particular facts therein recited.5
10. Pactolin vs Sandiganbayan
The character of the crime is not determined by the
Facts: caption or the preamble of the information or by the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have
Petitioner Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin – former Sanggu been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts
Panlalawigan member of Misamis Occidental. and circumstances in the complaint or information. In
this case, the Amended Information encompasses the
Mayor Fuentes approved Asbatillas request for acts of Pactolin constitutive of a violation of Art. 172
financial assistance for the city’s football team. in relation to par. 2 of Art. 171 of the RPC.
Mayor Fuentes then designated city councilor,
Ferraren as OIC Mayor. Asbatillas then received a 2) The Sandiganbayan's conviction of Pactolin was
10,000 check on behalf of the football team based on its factual findings after the prosecution
presented both documentary and testimonial pieces of
While Ferraren was the OIC Mayor, Pactolin asked to evidence. We are not a trier of facts so we defer to the
photocopy Asbatillas’s letter to which the Asst City factual findings of the lower court that had more
Treasurer Toledo lent. opportunities and facilities to examine the evidence
presented.
Thereafter, Pactolin filed a case for illegal
disberesment of public funds against Ferraren while Given the clear absence of a satisfactory explanation
Ferraren instituted a criminal complaint of regarding Pactolin’s possession and use of the
falsification of a public document against Pactolin falsified Abastillas letter, the Sandiganbayan did not
err in concluding that it was Pactolin who falsified the
Pactolin pleaded not guilty during the arraignment but letter. The settled rule is that in the absence of
repeatedly failed to appear during trial on the merits. satisfactory explanation, one found in the possession
The Sandiganbayan found Pactolin guilty of of and who used a forged is the forger and therefore
Falsification. guilty of falsification.

Issue: The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint

or information is filed in court, any disposition of the
1) Did the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the case, be it dismissal, conviction, or acquittal of the
case? YES accused, rests on the sound discretion of the court.
The only qualification to this exercise of judicial
2) If so, did it gravely abuse its discretion when it prerogative is that the substantial rights of the
convicted him despite its own findings that the accused must not be impaired nor the People be
falsified document was not in his official custody. deprived of the right to due process.
NO
As we have discoursed, no substantial right of
Ruling: Pactolin has been impaired nor has there been any
violation of his right to due process. He had been
adequately informed by the detailed litany of the
charges leveled against him in the information. He
had the occasion to confront witnesses against him They likewise assert that lacking jurisdiction a court
and the opportunity to question documents presented can not order the amendment of the information. In
by the prosecution. Under no circumstance in this the same breath, they contend however that the
case has his right to due process been violated. Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the persons of
the accused.

It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the

jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief
against his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction.

We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has

jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it
was thus vested with the authority to order the
amendment of the Information.

11. Antiporda vs Garchitorena

Facts: Rule 110 of the ROC states that an information or

complaint may be amended, in substance or in form,
Antiporda and 3 others were charged with the crime without leave of court, at any time before the accused
of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos in the pleads.
Sandiganbayan.
Whether a reinvestigation is necessary in view of
Because it was not clear whether the offense the Amended Information. NO
committed was office-related, the Sandiganbayan
ordered the prosecution to amend the information. We hold that the reinvestigation is not necessary
anymore. A reinvestigation is proper only if the
The prosecution filed an Amended Information accused's substantial rights would be impaired.
alleging that one of the accused, Licerio A.
Antiporda, Jr., took advantage of his position as In the case at bar, we do not find that their rights
mayor of Buguey, Cagayan to order the kidnapping of would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended
Elmer Ramos. Information is filed without a reinvestigation taking
place. The amendments made to the Information
Accused moved for a reinvestigation of the case and merely describe the public positions held by the
for the deferment of the issuance of the warrants of accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was
arrest but the Sandiganbayan denied his motion. brought when he was kidnapped.

Accused then moved to quash the amended The purpose of a preliminary investigation (to
information for lack of jurisdiction of the engender a well-grounded belief that a crime had
Sandiganbayan over the case, but the latter likewise been committed and accused are probably guilty
denied the same. thereof) had already been achieved.

Issue:
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
case. YES

The petitioners argue that the Sandiganbayan had no

jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because the
original information did not allege that one of the
petitioners, Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., took advantage
of his position as mayor of Buguey, Cagayan to order
the kidnapping of Elmer Ramos.
The petitioner argues that the seven informations filed
against him should be quashed because:

1) he was denied the right to present evidence at the

preliminary investigation;

The Preliminary Investigaiton

The records of the hearings belie Sanchez’
contention that he was not accorded the right to
present counter-affidavits.

The petitioner was present at that hearing and

he never disowned Atty. Panelo as his counsel.
During the entire proceedings, he remained quiet and
let this counsel speak and argue on his behalf. It was
only in his tardy Reply that he has suddenly bestirred
12. Sanchez vs Demetriou himself and would now question his representation by
this lawyer as unauthorized and inofficious.
Facts:
At any rate, it is settled that the absence of a
The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested preliminary investigation does not impair the validity
the filing of appropriate charges against several of the information or otherwise render the same
persons, including Sanchez for the rape-slay of Mary defective and neither does it affect the jurisdiction of
Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. the court over the case or constitute a ground for
quashing the information.
Acting on this request, the DOJ conducted a
preliminary investigation however Sanchez was not If no preliminary investigation has been held, or if it
present but represented by his counsel, Atty. Brion Jr, is flawed, the trial court may, on motion of the
accused, order an investigation or reinvestigation and
PNP Commander Piad then issued an invitation to hold the proceedings in the criminal cases in
Sanchez requesting him to appear for investigation at abeyance. 7 In the case at bar, however, the
Camp Vicente Lim in Laguba. respondent judge saw no reason or need for such a
step. Finding no arbitrariness in her factual
On that same day, Sanchez was positively identified conclusions, we shall defer to her judgment.
by persons who executed extrajudicial confessions
implicating him as the principal in the rape-slay case. 2) only the Ombudsman had the competence to
conduct the investigation;
Respondent prosecutors immediately conducted an
inquest upon his arrival, with Atty. Salvador Panelo Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
as his counsel. Sanchez submits that the DOJ has no
jurisdiction over his case but rather, the Office of the
After the hearing, a warrant of arrest was served and Ombudsman is vested with the power to conduct the
Sanchez was later confined to Camp Crame. investigation of all cases involving public officers
like him.
However, the Secretary of Justice expressed concern
of miscarriage of justice because of the tense partisan
atmosphere in Laguna in favor of petitioner. Thus, the The Ombudsman is indeed empowered under Section
SC ordered a change of venue to Metro Manila, and 15, paragraph (1) of R.A. 6770 to investigate and
were raffled to respondent Demetriou. prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public
official. However, as we held only two years ago in
On that same date, petitioner filed to quash the the case of Aguinaldo v. Domagas, this authority "is
informations but were subsequently denied. Thus, he not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or
filed a petition for certiorari with TRO
concurrent authority in respect of the offense accused in connection with the rape-slay cases. It was
charged." belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal.

3) his warrantless arrest is illegal and the court has Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at
therefore not acquired jurisdiction over him; all, we find that the trial court still lawfully acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
Was Sanchez arrested on August 13, 1993? YES
Application of actual force, manual touching of The rule is that if the accused objects to the
the body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move
arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an to quash the information, but only on that ground. If,
intent on the part of one of the parties to arrest the as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the
other and an intent on the part of the other to submit, motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that
under the belief and impression that submission is objection and to have submitted his person to the
necessary. jurisdiction of the court.

In the case at bar, the invitation came from a 4) he is being charged with seven homicides arising
high-ranking military official and the investigation of from the death of only two persons;
Sanchez was to be made at a military camp. Although
in the guise of a request, it was obviously a command The Informations
or an order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly The petitioner submits that the seven informations
be expected to defy. In fact, apparently cowed by the charging seven separate homicides are absurd
"invitation," he went without protest (and in informal because the two victims in these cases could not have
clothes and slippers only) with the officers who had died seven times.
come to fetch him.
It is clearly provided in Rule 110 of the Rules of
We agree with the petitioner that his arrest did not Court that:
come under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, providing as follows: SECTION 13. Duplicity of offense. — A
complaint or information must charge but one
SECTION 5. Arrest without warrant; when offense, except only in those cases in which
lawful. — A peace officer or a private person existing laws prescribe a simple punishment for
may, without a warrant, arrest a person: various offenses.

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be Rape with homicide comes within the exception
arrested has committed, is actually committing, under R.A. 2632 and R.A. 4111, amending the Revise
or is attempting to commit an offense; Penal Code.

(b) When an offense has in fact just been In other words, the allegation of the prosecution is
committed and he has personal knowledge of that the girl was raped seven times, with each of the
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has seven accused taking turns in abusing her with the
committed it; and assistance of the other six. Afterwards, their lust
satisfied, all seven of them decided to kill and thus
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner silence Sarmenta.
who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving 􏰒nal judgment or 5) the informations are discriminatory because they
temporarily con􏰒ned while his case is pending, do not include Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia;
or has escaped while being transferred from one and
confinement to another.
The Alleged Discrimination
The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was The charge of discrimination against the
doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the Regional Trial petitioner because of the non-inclusion of Teofilo
Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia in the informations
of the petitioner by virtue of the warrant of arrest it must also be dismissed.
issued on August 26, 1993 against him and the other
The decision of the prosecutor may be reversed Thereafter, two informations for Sexual Harassment
or modified by the Secretary of Justice or in special and Acts of Lasciviousness were filed against Judge
cases by the President of the Philippines. But even Esteban.
this Court cannot order the prosecution of a person
against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient On September 18, 1998, petitioner filed a motion to
evidence to support at least a prima facie case. The quash the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos.
courts try and absolve or convict the accused but as a 24703-04 for acts of lasciviousness on the ground that
rule have no part in the initial decision to prosecute he has been placed four (4) times in jeopardy for the
him. same offense.

6) as a public officer, he can be tried for the offense The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash but
only by the Sandiganbayan. directed the prosecution to determine if the offenses
charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 24703-04 were
There is no direct relation between the commission of committed in relation to petitioner's functions as a
the crime of rape with homicide and the petitioner's judge.
office as municipal mayor because public office is not
an essential element of the crime charged. The Prosecution filed Amended Informations in the
offense can stand independently of the office. Criminal Cases. Esteban filed motion to quash the
same Amended Informations stating that the crimes
Moreover, it is not even alleged in the information charged were not committed in relation to his office
that the commission of the crime charged was as judge, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the
intimately connected with the performance of the Sandiganbayan.
petitioner's official functions to make it fall under the
exception laid down in People v. Montejo. Sandiganbayan denied MTQ stating that the act of
Esteban endorsing Ana May’s permanent
13. Esteban vs Sandiganbayan appointment was clearly a function of the office of
the accused and therefore, committed in relation to
Facts: his office.

In her complaint, Ana May alleged that she was a Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan has
casual employee of the City Government of jurisdiction over Criminal Cases 2703-04 for acts
Cabanatuan City. Sometime later she was detailed of lasciviousness filed against petitioner.
with Branch 1 MTCC of Cabanatuan City, upon
incessant request of Judge Esteban. Esteban contends that the alleged acts of
lasciviousness were not committed in relation to his
After her detail with Branch 1, she then applied for office as a judge; and the fact that he is a public
the vacant position of bookbinder. When she official is not an essential element of the crimes
approached Judge Esteban in his chambers to follow charged.
up on her application, Esteban asked that he get a kiss
from her every day in exchange for her appointment. The Amended Informations indicate a close
However, Ana May refused the proposal. relationship between Esteban’s official functions as a
judge and the commission of acts of lasciviousness.
Esteban nonetheless recommended her for
appointment. Thereafter, he suddenly kissed on her In People v. Montejo, we ruled that an offense is
the left cheek. She was shocked and swore never to said to have been committed in relation to the
return to or talk to petitioner. office if the offense is "intimately connected"
with the office of the offender and perpetrated
Sometime later Esteban requested Ana May to see while he was in the performance of his official
him in his chambers regarding the payroll. Once functions. This intimate relation between the
inside, Esteban why she hadn’t reported to his office offense charged and the discharge of official
since she was receiving salary for sometime already. duties must be alleged in the Information.

Esteban suddenly professed his love for her, kissed There can be no doubt, therefore, that petitioner used
her all over and touched her right breast. his official position in committing the acts
complained of.
disqualified by the Constitution from appearing as
While it is true, as petitioner argues, that public office counsel for the accused in said criminal case. Soon,
is not an element of the crime of acts of after the filing of the petition, we issued the writ of
lasciviousness, defined and penalized under Article preliminary injunction prayed for, without bond.
336 of the Revised Penal Code, nonetheless, he could
not have committed the crimes charged were it not for
the fact that as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, That during the course of the trial, respondent Judge
Branch I, Cabanatuan City, he has the authority to rejected the prosecution’s documentary evidence and
recommend the appointment of Ana May as numerous exhibits.
bookbinder. In other words, the crimes allegedly
committed are intimately connected with his office. In contrast with the severe and rigorous policy used
by respondent Judge in dealing with the
aforementioned evidence for the prosecution,
petitioner cites the liberality with which the lower
court admitted the evidence of the defense.

Issue: Whether the lower court had committed

GAD in rejecting the direct and rebuttal evidence
of the prosecution. YES

14. People vs Montejo

Ruling:
Facts:
It is obvious to us that said direct and rebuttal
Respodent was Judge Montejo assigned to Criminal evidence, as well as the aforementioned questions, are
Case No. 672. relevant to the issues involved in Criminal Case No.
672.
Prosecution filed for preliminary injunction alleging
Respondents were several policemen were charged It is elemental that all parties in a criminal action are
with murder in Criminal Case No. 672. The entitled to a reasonable opportunity to establish their
information alleged that: Mayor Brown organized respective theories.
groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes and
established a sub-police headquarters which In the case at bar, the issue of the guilt or innocence
entertained criminal complaints. And that one Yakan of the accused is bound to hinge heavily upon the
Awalin Tebag was arrested without warrant, detained, veracity of the opposing witnesses and the weight
tortured, killed, and his body dumped in a nearby attached to their respective testimony. Hence, the
isolated field. An old Japanese rifle supplied by parties should be allowed a certain latitude in the
Mayor Brown, was placed beside said body. presentation of their evidence, lest they may be so
hampered that the ends of justice may eventually be
that: that, after due hearing, the rulings of respondent defeated or appear to be defeated. The danger of
Judge, rejecting some evidence for the prosecution landing to such result must be avoided.
therein and not permitting the same to propound
certain questions, be set aside; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROHIBITION
AGAINST SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE
That said respondent Judge be ordered to admit the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM
aforementioned evidence and permit said questions; APPEARING AS COUNSEL IN CERTAIN
and that Senator Roseller Lim be declared, contrary to CRIMINAL CASES; WHEN PROHIBITION
another ruling made by respondent Judge,
APPLIES EVEN IF THE CRIME CHARGED IS The classification between those pending cases
MURDER. involving the concerned public officials whose trial
has not yet commenced and whose cases could have
Special Mention in Lacson vs Executive Secretary: been affected by the amendments of the
We held that the offense charged was Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under RA 8249, as
committed in relation to the office of the accused against those cases where trial had already started as
because it was perpetrated while they were in the of the approval of the law, rests on substantial
performance, through improper or irregular of their distinction that makes real differences.
official functions and would not have been committed
had they not held their office, besides, the accused Since it is within the power of the Congress to define
had no personal motive in committing the crime, thus, the jurisdiction of courts subject to the constitutional
there was an intimate connection between the offense limitations, it can be reasonably anticipated that an
and the office of the accused. alteration of that jurisdiction would necessarily affect
pending cases, which is why it has to provide for a
remedy in the form of a transitory provision.

Thus, petitioner and intervenors cannot now claim

that Sections 4 and 7 placed them under a different
category from those similarly situated as them.

Moreover, petitioner's and intervenor's contention that

their right to a two-tiered appeal which they acquired
under RA 7975 has been diluted by the enactment of
RA 8249 is incorrect.

The same contention had already been rejected by the

Court considering that the right to appeal is not a
natural right but statutory in nature that can be
regulated by law.
15. Lacson vs Executive Secretary The mode of procedure provided for in the statutory
right to appeal is not included in the prohibition
Synopsis: against ex post facto law. RA 8249 pertains only to
matters of procedure, and being merely an
Petitioner Panfilo Lacson and petitioners-intervenors amendatory statute it does not partake the nature of an
questioned the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of ex post facto law.
RA 8249 – An Act which further defines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Anent the issue of jurisdiction, the Court ruled that
for failure to show in the amended informations that
They also seek to prevent the Sandiganbayan from the charge of murder was intimately connected with
proceeding with the trial of Criminal Cases 23047- the discharge of official functions of those accused
23057 against them on the ground of lack of PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject
jurisdiction. criminal cases is plain murder and therefore, within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court,
They further argued that if the case is tried before the not the Sandiganbayan.
Sandiganbayan, their right to procedural due process
would violate as they could no longer avail of the Accordingly, the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7
two-tiered appeal to the Sandiganbayan, which they of RA 8249 is sustained and the Addendum to the
acquired under RA 7975, before recourse to the March 5, 1997 resolution of the Sandiganbayan is
Supreme Court. reversed.

The Court ruled that the challengers of Sections 4 and Facts:

7 of RA 8249 failed to rebut the presumption of
constitutionality and reasonableness of the questioned On May 18, 1995, 11 persons believed to be members
provisions. of the KURATONG BALELENG gang, organized a
crime syndicate in a series of bank robberies in Metro Sandiganbayan then issued an Adendum stating that it
Manila. was competent to take cognizance of the cases since
trial had not yet ensued.
They were slain along Commonwealth, Quezon City
by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and
Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). Peitioner argues that:
1) the questioned provisions of the statute were
However, SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, CIC member, introduced by the authors in bad faith as it was made
acting on a media expose, stated that what actually precisely to suit the situation in which petitioner’s
transpired on May 18th was a summary execution and cases were in the Sandiganbayan by restoring
not a shoot-out between the gang members and the jurisdiction thereof to it.
ABRITG.
2) Retroactive application of the law would be
Thereafter Ombudsman formed a panel of tantamount to making it an ex post facto legislation
investigators to investigate the incident but later and a denial of their right to procedural due process.
absolved them from any criminal liability, finding
that the said incident was a legitimate public 3) The title of the law violates the one-title-one-
operation. subject requirement for the passage of statutes under
Art 6, Sec 21 of the Constitution.
However, Overall Deputy Ombdusman modified the
Blancaflor panel’s findings and recommended the Both the OSG and Office of the Ombudsman filed
indictment for multiple murder against the 26 separate pleadings in support of the constitutionality
respondnents, including petitioners and intervenors. of the challenged provisions of the law.

Thus, petitioner was among those charged with 11 Court ordered the filing of additional memoranda
informations for murder before the Sandiganbayan. within a nonextendible period of 10 days; all parties
Ombudsman conducted reinvestigation, amended except for the OSG complied.
Information where petitioner was charged only as an
accessory.

Whether petitioner was able to overcome the

All the accused then filed separate motions presumption of constitutionality? NO
questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;
they contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction The established rule is that every law has in its favor
of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or more of the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its
the "principal accused" are government officials with nullification there must be a clear and unequivocal
Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher, or PNP officials with breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and
the rank of Chief Superintendent (Brigadier General) argumentative one.
or higher.
The burden of proving the invalidity of the law lies
The highest ranking principal accused in the amended with those who challenge it. That burden, we regret to
informations has the rank of only a Chief Inspector, say, was not convincingly discharged in the present
and none has the equivalent of at least SG 27. case.

Sandiganbayan then amended the Information and The Sandiganbayan was mandated in Section 5, Artcile
ordered the cases transferred to Quezon City RTC. 13 of the Constitution

While the motions were pending, RA 8248 was Pursuant to the constitutional mandate, Presidential
passed in Congress and later approved into law. Decree No. 1486 created the Sandiganbayan.
Specifically, the said bills sought to expand the Thereafter, the following laws on the Sandiganbayan,
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the in chronological order, were enacted:
word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” P.D. No. 1606,
in Section 2 of RA 7975. Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
P.D. No. 1860,
P.D. No. 1861, The offenses mentioned in paragraphs a, b and c of the
R.A. No. 7975,and same Section 4 do not make any reference to the
R.A. No. 8249. criminal participation of the accused public officer as
to whether he is charged as a principal, accomplice or
Under the latest amendments introduced by Section 4 accessory.
of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
In enacting R.A. 8249, the Congress simply restored
Section 7 of RA No. 8249: Transitory Provision – This the original provisions of P.D. 1606 which does not
act shall apply to all cases pending in any court over mention the criminal participation of the public officer
which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. as a requisite to determine the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan law prior to RA 8249 was RA
7975. Whether the passage of RA 8249 was directed only
to the Kuratong Baleleng cases and thus violative of
Under paragraphs a and c, Section 4 of R.A. 8249, the the equal protection clause. NO
word "principal" before the word "accused" appearing
in the above-quoted Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of Petitioner and intervenors' posture that Sections 4 and 7
R.A. 7975, was deleted. It is due to this deletion of the of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of
word "principal" that the parties herein are at the law 33 because its enactment was particularly
loggerheads over the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases in the
Sandiganbayan, is a contention too shallow to deserve
Petitioner and intervenors, relying on R.A. 7975, argue merit.
that the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan,
has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases since No concrete evidence and convincing argument were
none of the principal accused under the amended presented to warrant a declaration of an act of the entire
information has the rank of Superintendent or higher. Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of
the co-equal executive department as unconstitutional.
On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman, Every classification made by law is presumed
through the Special Prosecutor who is tasked to reasonable. Thus, the party who challenges the law
represent the People before the Supreme Court except must present proof of arbitrariness.
in certain cases, contends that the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction pursuant to R.A. 8249.
A perusal of the aforequoted Section 4 of R.A. 8249 Contrary to petitioner and intervenors’ argument, the
reveals that to fall under the exclusive original law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the following Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only
requisites must concur: cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also
“in any court.”
(1) the offense committed is a violation of
(a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and It just happened that the Kuratong Baleleng cases are
Corrupt Practices Act), one of those affected by the law. Moreover, those cases
(b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), where trial had already begun are not affected by the
(c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the transitory provision under Section 7 of RA 8249.
Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery),
(d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A, issued
in 1986 (sequestration cases), 31 or Whether the retroactive application of RA 8249 to
(e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or the Kuratong Baleleng cases constitutes an ex post
complexed with other crimes; facto law. NO

(2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), Petitioner and intervenors further argued that the
(b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employee holding retroactive application of R.A. 8249 to the Kuratong
any of the positions enumerated in paragraph a of Baleleng cases constitutes an ex post facto law for they
Section 4; and are deprived of their right to procedural due process as
they can no longer avail of the two- tiered appeal which
(3) the offense committed is in relation to the office. they had allegedly acquired under R.A. 7975.
Petitioner's and intervenors' contention that their right within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
to a two-tiered appeal which they acquired under R.A. Regional Trial Court, 73 not the Sandiganbayan.
7975 has been diluted by the enactment of R.A. 8249,
is incorrect. The same contention has already been
rejected by the court several times considering that the
right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in
nature that can be regulated by law.

The mode of procedure provided for in the statutory

right of appeal is not included in the prohibition against
ex post facto laws. R.A. 8249 pertains only to matters
of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute
it does not partake the nature of an ex post facto law. It
does not mete out a penalty and, therefore, does not
come within the prohibition.

Moreover, the law did not alter the rules of evidence or

the mode of trial. It has been ruled that adjective
statutes may be made applicable to actions pending and
unresolved at the time of their passage.

In any case, R.A. 8249 has preserved the accused's

right to appeal to the Supreme Court to review
questions of law. 55 On the removal of the intermediate
review of facts, the Supreme Court still has the power
of review to determine if the presumption of innocence
has been convincingly overcome.

Whether the offense of multiple murder was

committed in relation to the office of the accused
PNP officers.

The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth

with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the
exact offense which the accused is alleged to have
committed in relation to his office was, sad to say, not
satisfied. We believe that the mere allegation in the
amended information that the offense was committed
by the accused public officer "in relation to his office"
is not sufficient.

That phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual

averment that would show the close intimacy between
the offense charged and the discharge of the accused's
official duties.

Consequently, for failure to show in the amended

informations that the charge of murder was intimately
connected with the discharge of official functions of
the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the
subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore,