People vs. Mariano Facts: The office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed an Information accusing Mariano of estafa.

Mariano was the Liaison Officer of Mayor Nolasco and is authorized to receive and be receipted for US excess property of USAID/NEC for the use and benefit of the municipality. The property received were electric cables and cable powers amounting to P4,797.35 which he had a duty to deliver to the Mayor. However he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of confidence and deceit, misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the items. Mariano filed a motion to quash the Information claiming that the court had no jurisdiction. He claimed that the items which were the subject matter of the Information against him were the same items for which Mayor Nolasco was indicted by the Military Commission under a charge of malversation and found guilty. He claimed that inasmuch as the case against Mayor Nolasco has already been decided by the Military Tribunal, the CFI of Bulacan had lost jurisdiction over him. Respondent judge granted the motion to quash stating that since the Military Commission had already taken cognizance of the malversation case involving the same subject matter in its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court, the case for estafa has already been heard and decided. Issue: Whether or not civil courts and military commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction over estafa and committed by a civilian Held: there is no concurrent jurisdiction Ratio: The question of jurisdiction of respondent CFI is to be resolved on the basis of the law or statute providing for or defining its jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1948 in Section 44 (f) provides the CFI shall have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than six months or fine of more than 200 pesos. Estafa falls under the original jurisdiction of CFI. Jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. At the time the criminal case was filed on Dec 18, 1974, the law in force vesting jurisdiction upon said court is the Judiciary Act of 1948. General Order No. 49 dated Oct 4, 1974, redefines the jurisdiction of military tribunals over certain offenses, and estafa and malversation are not enumerated therein. Therefore, the Military Commission is not vested with jurisdiction over the crime of estafa. We do not have here a situation involving two tribunals with concurrent jurisdiction over a particular crime so as to apply the rule that whoever takes cognizance first acquires jurisdiction exclusive of the other. The Military Commission is without power or authority to hear and determine the crime of estafa against Mariano hence there is no concurrent jurisdiction to speak of. Estafa falls within the sole exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. UNITED STATES VS. JUEVES The defendants/appellants were charged with the crime of brigandage or highway robbery for having committed the following acts: (1) On the evening of December 31, 1903, in Alabat, Tayabas Province, a band of armed men entered the municipal building, bound the presidente, took seven guns, and killed the Justice of Peace of that town. (2) On the evening of February 04, 1904, a band of some twenty men ( 3 armed with guns and the rest with bolos ) entered the house of Doroteo Maraver, situated in the

sitio of Capalohan (at that time, a part of the town of Capalongan, Ambos Camarines ), tied and bound four men, and ordered the women to prepare a meal for them. After eating, they left with them men whom they bound and also some tobacco and rice. They went to the house of Francisco Ambas, one of their prisoners, where they took a hog and other things. Afterwards, they proceeded to a river where they liberated Angelo Lunasco and Doroteo Maraver ( two of their prisoners ). (3) On Holy Thursday of 1904, a band of men, armed with a revolver, 3 shotguns, and bolos, went to the barrio of Basiad ( also within the jurisdiction of Capalongan, Ambos Camarines at that time ) taking 3 men as prisoners, conducting them from place to place. One of the prisoners, Juan Talento, managed to escape. (4) One morning of August 1910, two of the accused, Agustin Jueves and Felix Jueves, with their younger brother, Esteban Jueves, all armed with large bolos, entered the house of Serapio Juego, situated near the sea of sitio of Pangas, municipality of Calauag, Tayabas, and took possession of a small quantity of rice. Graciana Laiman, wife of Francisco Ambos, and Doroteo Maraver identified all seven of the accused of having committed the unlawful acts. Angelo Lunasco identified 5 of the accused and Juan Talento identified 3 of the accused of having committed the unlawful acts. The testimonies of the witnesses show conclusively that the guilt of the appellants has been established beyond any question of doubt. NOTE: A small portion of the Province of Ambos Camarines was transferred to the Province of Tayabas. The Court of First Instance of Tayabas took jurisdiction of the crime committed within the transferred territory PRIOR to the time jurisdiction was conferred and convicted the appellants. ISSUES: 1.) W/N the Court of First Instance of Tayabas has jurisdiction of the crime committed within the transferred territory PRIOR to the time jurisdiction was conferred. 2.) W/N the assumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed before jurisdiction was conferred is in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Philippine Bill. RATIO: 1.) YES. The territory where the acts complained of in the case at bar were committed having been transferred to the Province of Tayabas prior to the institution of this action, the court of that province had jurisdiction to hear and determine this case.The change of the territory after the crime was committed and before the institution of this action does not touch the offense nor change the punishment therefor. It only includes the place of the commission of the offense within another judicial district, and subjects the Appellants to trial in that district. The court held that the jurisdiction of Tayabas court was complete. 2.) NO. The assumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed before jurisdiction was conferred is not in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Philippine Bill having said that the change of the territory after the crime was committed and before the institution of this action does not touch the offense nor change the punishment. It does not prejudice the rights of the accused. DECISION: The Supreme Court held that CFI of Tayabas has jurisdiction of the crime and affirmed the conviction of the appellants. Reyes v. Diaz Facts: Some election protest case (it didn¶t expound)

Doctrine: 1) The issue of jurisdiction which confers appellate powers upon this Court in a given case is not such question as is dependent exclusively upon minor matters of fact or upon a mere construction of the pleadings, but that which has reference to the more important question of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject-matter as determined by law. 2) Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers. The question of whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter, calls for interpretation and application of the law of jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the different courts in the Philippines, and since the ruling on the matter is of far-reaching consequences, affecting, as it may, the very life and structure of our judicial system, the law has deemed it wise to place the power and authority to act thereon in the highest court of the land. 3) In order that a court may validly try and decide a case, it must have jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. But in some instances it is said that the court should also have jurisdiction over the issue meaning thereby that the issue being tried and decided by the court be within the issues raised in the pleadings. But this kind of jurisdiction should be distinguished from jurisdiction over the subject-matter the latter being conferred by law and the former by the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the subject-matter, may be conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties. Although an issue is not duly pleaded it may validly be tried and decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the parties. This cannot be done when jurisdiction over the subject-matter is involved. In truth, jurisdiction over the issue is an expression of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. Where, for instance, an issue is not duly pleaded in the complaint, the defendant cannot be said to have been served with process as to that issue. At any rate, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over a specific issue is a question that requires nothing except an examination of the pleadings, and this function is without such importance as call for the intervention of this Court. Velunta vs. Chief, Philippine Constabulary Facts: y y Petitioner is a regular member of the Integrated National Police (INC) of Tacloban City, with rank of Patrolman. On April 16, 1982, at around 6pm while directing traffic, petitioner tried to apprehend Romeo Lozano, a tricycle driver, for violation of traffic rules and regulations. An altercation occurred between them and resulted in the shooting at the left cheek leading to the death of Romeo Lozano. The widow of Lozano, Mrs. Lozano, filed an administrative complaint against petitioner in NAPOLCOM. NAPOLCOM issued a decision which held petitioner guilty of grave misconduct with a penalty of Dismissal from Service. On a motion for reconsideration, petitioner was held guilty for Less Grave Misconduct and modified the penalty to suspension for 6 months without pay. During the pendency of the administrative case, Mrs. Lozano filed a complaint for homicide with the City Fiscal¶s Office of Tacloban. After finding prima facie evidence of petitioner¶s intent to kill and he was on the performance of his duties when the shooting occurred, the City Fiscal recommended the case be referred to the Tanodbayan for further investigation. The Tanodbayan endorsed the filing of information for homicide against petitioner. The case was referred to the military authorities pursuant to P.D.1850 which authorizes the Chief of Phil. Constabulary (PC) to convene court martials to try, hear, and decide cases for criminal acts committed by members of the INC.

y y y y y

y y

y

Petitioner challenges the assumption of jurisdiction by the General Court Martial over his case pursuant to E.O 1040 in relation to E.O. 1012 whereby supervision and control over all units and members of the INC have been placed under NAPOLCOM directly under the Office of the President.

Relevant Issue: 1. Whether the General Court Martial has jurisdiction over the case. Held: 1. Yes Ratio: 1. It is specifically stated under EO 1012 that only the ³operational supervision and direction´ over all units of the INC force stationed or assigned in the diff. cities and municipalities that was transferred from the PC to the city or municipal govt. concerned. Under EO 1040, it is the exercise of ³administrative control and supervision´ over all units of the INC forces throughout the country that was transferred to the President of the Phils. The distinction between operational supervision and direction over the INC and jurisdiction or authority of a court-martial to hear, try and decide a criminal proceeding is that in the former, it refers to how the police will perform their functions and who shall direct such performance, while in the latter, it refers to the tribunals vested with power to try criminal cases against them. Subido v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 122641; January 20, 1997) Facts: On June 25, 1992, Bayani Subido Jr., then a Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) and Rene Parina, a BID special agent, while in the performance of their official functions, issued and implemented a warrant of arrest against James J. Maksimuk, knowing fully well that the BID decision requiring Maksimuk¶s deportation was not yet final and executory. This resulted to the detention of Maksimuk for a period of 43 days, causing him undue injury. Subido and Parina were charged with Arbitrary Detention defined and punished by Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code. For their part, the petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, contending that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case since when it was filed, Subido was no longer part of the service and Parina was not occupying a position corresponding to salary grade ³27´. Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case Ruling: Yes. The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case by virtue of Section 2 of R.A. 7975, which amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 Section 2: Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 is hereby further amended to read as follows: Section 4: Jurisdiction ± The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in all cases involving: a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the

and Cuyco with Rolando R.principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government. The Sandiganbayan issued resolutions denying the motion to quash and ordering the preventive suspension of Cuyco and his co-accused for ninety (90) days. 2000 FACTS: Graft Investigation Officer Ma. pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Blg. c. Generoso P. it still applies to him since he is prosecuted as a co-conspirator of Subido. Metropolitan Trial Court. 1.2. Madarang for violation of Section 3(e) of the same Act. contending that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the cases. Municipal Trial Court. . Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to the office. Cuyco (petitioner). 14. and the prosecution filed with the Sandiganbayan two informations against Cuyco for both offenses. exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested n the proper Regional Trial Court. 6758). Wee for violation of Section 3(a). She recommended the filing of two informations against Cuyco. 137017-18. and Municipal Circuit Trial Court. CUYCO VS. Cuyco filed a motion to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction.A. during which Subido was still Commissioner of BID.3019. acting or interim capacity. otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher. 129. Lourdes M. although Parina was holding a position with a classification lower than salary grade ³27´. Vilaria-Yap found probable cause for the indictment of Ramon G. at the time of the commission of the offense. Similarly. and 14-A. b. whether in permanent. the principal accused. as the case may be. SANDIGANBAYAN G. Germino and Melcy V. or their equivalent.R. In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ³27´ or higher. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation.A. as prescribed in said R. 7975 applies since what is considered is the time of the commission of the crime. Contrary to the claims of the petitioners. of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R. R.A. 1) Officials of the executive branch occupying positions of regional director and higher. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with the Executive Order Nos. R. Cuyco filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to set aside the resolutions in question and to dismiss the criminal cases for want of jurisdiction. February 8. or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher. Nos.A. This was denied. Jurisdiction is only vested on the other courts if none of the principal accused where occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ³27´. 6758. specificially including: xxx 5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ³27´ and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

She filed for a motion for reconsideration but it was also denied. whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office. hence.A. the non remittance of Buaya which caused damage to Country Bankers was committed in Manila. The account of Buaya was audited and it was showed that P358. she filed a certiorari in the Supreme Court questioning the denials of such motion by Judge Polo.A. R. R. given that the main office of Country Bankers is in Manila. he was occupying the position of Director II.Salary Grade 26. RATIO: The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses and felonies.850 was unremitted. . as amended. Estafa was sufficiently addressed in the information. where the accused holds a position with salary grade "27" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. Polo Facts: Buaya is the insurance agent of Country Bankers Insurance Company.A. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a) and (e). jurisdiction over the cases falls with the Regional Trial Court. HELD: No. Here. as amended. So now. The case did not go through the Court of Appeals Issue: Did the court have jurisdiction over the case? Held: YES. Buaya v.. Buaya filed a motion to Quash on the ground that the Manila RTC has no jurisdiction because she is from Cebu and that the case is civil in nature (a separate civil case was filed) but was denied. unless committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of regional director and higher with Salary Grade "27" or higher. under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the cases against petitioner for violation of Sections 3(a) and (e). Estafa is a continuing or transitory offense and the case can be instituted upon any place where any of the essential requisites of Estafa were committed. She is required to make a periodic report and accounting of her transactions and remit premium collections to Country Bankers. She was charged with estafa in the Manila RTC.3019. One of the essential requisites of Estafa is damage or prejudice to 3rd persons. The Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction. Manila RTC has jurisdiction over the case. 6758) in relation to their office. At the time of the commission of the offense in 1992.

unlawfully and feloniously defraud the Country Bankers Insurance Corp represented by Banez duly organized and existing under the Philippine laws of the Philippines. Section 31. The question of jurisdiction of the court is always a question of importance. unless the court. ERmita in said city in the following manner: the said accused«. Philippines. A hearing was set but was postponed since Rafael Anadilla was not yet arrested by the authorities. SUNGA June 20. GR Antonio Bldg. US v Gallegos Facts: y y y Criminal complaint for adultery Mariano Gallegos had relations with Benita Antioquia several times. 58 provides that after both parties have presented their evidence. 4 months before the trial date. TM Kalaw. they may offer rebutting testimony only. in the interest of justice the court may always permit it to present additional evidence.The information in this case reads as follows: ³that during the period 1980 to June 15. if that fact appears before the trial of the case is closed REPUBLIC vs. there is no provision of law requiring that they shall be tried jointly. because Antioquia could not be apprehended after due diligence Issue: 1. in the furtherance of justice. the accused did then and there willfully. 58) Yes. there is a positive provision of law permitting them to be tried separately (section 33. after closing its case. Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. with principal th address at 9 floor. general orders no. If evidence is necessary to prove that fact. and at the same time set a new trial date. However. the court a quo issued the now assailed order which reads: 2. inclusive. in a criminal action for adultery (a) by the offended person and (b) against both of the alleged culprits. in the City of Manila. In fact. and as a result Antioquia gave birth to a daughter Complaint includes both Gallegos and Antioquia. but only Gallegos was arrested. Yes. so far as the place of the commission of the rime is concerned. may present additional proof relating to the jurisdiction of the court Held/Ratio: 1. While the law provides that the complaint must be presented. W/N. 1988 FACTS: An information for Attempted Homicide was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur against accused-private respondents Rafael Anadilla. General Orders no. ³ The City of manila was alleged in the information so the Manila RTC has jurisdiction. The court a quo issued an order for the arrest of said accused. 1982. 2. in a criminal action for adultery one of the defendants may be tried alone when for some reason or other his co-defendant has not been arrested and brought to trial W/N prosecution. . permit them to offer new and additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in question.

1974. ³ The order was based on an AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE which was executed and notarized by the victim and mentioned that: a. which is the authority to hear and determine the case. RATIO: The court cites a similar case Crespo v.³Considering that the offended party. The fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the court when the case has been submitted to it as his jurisdiction ends in the direction and control of the prosecution of the case. Consequently. Only the court can decide what the best direction is for the case. In the case of Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. is hereby ordered lifted and has no force and effect. Jose Dadis is no longer interested in the further prosecution of this case and there being no objection on the part of the accused Ariston Anadilla. as it is within its exclusive jurisdiction. In this case. the testimonies of whom are needed to convict the accused. almost 10 years have elapsed since the date of the filing of the information. the guilt of the accused could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The provincial fiscal moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Hence the petition and issue of the case. but was also denied. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. he was no longer interested in the further prosecution of the case b. The rule is that once a complaint is filed. Mogul in its when it answered that the filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. hence it was not unusual that the victim could not find his witnesses. he had forgiven the accused c. the order of arrest issued by this Court against the accused Rafael Anadilla dated March 11. SO ORDERED. and that without their testimonies. his material witnesses could not be located. ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party. but without a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal. the disposition of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court. The bail bond posted for the provisional liberty of the accused is hereby ordered cancelled. the Provincial Warden is hereby ordered to release said accused from their detention immediately upon receipt of this order. When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested. Rafael Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. this case is hereby DISMISSED with costs de oficio. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. The fiscal still believed that he could convict the accused without thee testimonies in his MR! .

when the old Penal and Civil Codes were still in effect. any move of the offended part to dismiss the case. Though mentioned disjunctively. (victim muna. grandparents. by reason of her age or mental condition.´ in the trial court or on appeal.Although the Crespo doctrine holds that it is the courts duty to judge whether a case should be dismissed. Jurisdiction may only be conferred by law. 3. all other alternative parties mentioned. upon filing) into consideration? 2. lose their right to do so when the victim reaches the age of majority. y Hindi na dumaan sa CA yung case. Petition dismissed. when she was under 21. acting on the strength of public rumor. taking Teofila¶s age (of majority. by waiver or otherwise. With Teofila¶s attendance and testimony in the CFI proceedings. y It was at Esteban Sevilla¶s instance. or guardian of person or property to denounce the crime. the procurador sindico or the or the public prosecutor may do so. effectively make him waive his right to such defect? 3. and the accused cannot confer jurisdiction. . and should. even without objection of the accused. Nothing on record indicated such. then grandparents. that the complaint was filed. Article 448 of the old Penal Code does not automatically authorize the institution of criminal proceedings by all the mentioned parties. It is only after the fiscal¶s hearing that the court should exercise its duty to continue or dismiss the case. the lawmakers did not intend this conjunction of rights. grandparents. ³Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is fatal. and the fact that she was subpoenaed compelled her to appear. 2. The old Penal Code provision on seduction covered the age range of 12-23. Facts: y De la Santa allegedly seduced Teofila Sevilla in 1902. Issues: 1. xxx If the person injured should. be wholly unprotected. Does De la Santa¶s lack of objection over the complaint. Though the act may only be committed upon a woman still legally incapacitated. though the complaint was signed and sworn by her father? Held/Ratio i 1. y The Marinduque CFI convicted De la Santa of Seduction. then parents. while the old Civil Code places a woman¶s age of majority at 23. No. then guardian) Also. when she was already 24. US v De la Santa *This case was decided in 1907. brothers. taking active part in the proceedings is not sufficient basis for this unless she herself submitted and formally maintained the complaint) Note1Criminal proceedings for seduction can only be instituted on the complaint of the offended person or her parents. being outside the CFI¶s jurisdiction. private prosecutor and Teofila¶s dad. Does the father have such right to institute a Seduction complaint. lack the requisite personality to appear in court. or guardian. No. and subject to objection at any stage of the proceedings. y The complaint was filed only in 1906. No. like the father. not having parents. (beside the point daw. the right to institute criminal proceedings in seduction is exclusively and successively conferredin the order they are named. under promise of marriage. should first be submitted to the fiscal. besides. bearing in mind the possibility of pardon by the offended party while these other persons are attempting to file complaints. may she be said to have instituted the proceedings. voluntary or not.

if it should have been already imposed on the culprit.1993 Facts: Regalario and 6 others were found guilty of murder of a Menardo Garcia. The pardon shall never be presumed. It is also there where he delivered the stub in which the simulation or falsification was committed. He issued a ticket to a passenger who was going from Manila to Caloocan who continued his trip to Malolos. the appellants¶ claim that the 15 day reglamentary period should have restarted on the day of the denial of the MR 2. GR NO. he rendered an account to the station master at Tarlac of the Money collected during the trip. The notice of appeal was filed beyond the reglamentary period set by law . (CrimPro relevant) Judgment of conviction was promulgated on Jan 17 and a copy of which was received by the appellants¶ counsel the next day. On the matter of filing within the reglamentary period: Whether the lower court erred in denying notice of appeal on the ground of being filed out of time y Appellants¶ claim: computation of 15 days within which to file notice of appeal should have been counted from Feb 23(day after the MR was denied) and not from Jan 31 (day the verdict pre-MR was given) o In short. There was a 1 peso and 22 cents difference in the fare. an entry corresponding to the stub alleged to have been falsified was dated in Tarlac and contains an invoice of delivery signed by the accused and a receipt signed by the station master for the sum of 6 pesos and 48 cents. The ticket issued that simulated the trip was from Manila to Bocaue which costs 18 cents. Issue: Where must the jurisdiction be vested? The case must be tried in Tarlac and not in Manila. Appellants filed MR on Jan 31 but the court denied on Feb 22. He is an employee of the Manila-Dagupan Railway. On March 14. 101451 MARCH 23. US vs Reyes Facts The defendant was charged with the crime of estafa and falsification. The complaint does not designate the place where the falsification was committed.AL.In all the cases of this article the express or implied pardon of the offended party shall extinguish penal action or the penalty. Jan 18. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V ALEX REGALARIO ET. Estoppel by laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction y (Counsel for the state questions authority of the Supreme Court to review the case) Ruling of the lower court: (Issue on procedure is being questioned for the first time in the Supreme Court) Ruling of the Supreme Court: (TRIAL COURT DENIAL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AFFIRMED): 1. (Syllabus topic relevant)Neither the State nor private prosecutor moved for the dismissal of the appeal made by the appellants nor objected to the order of the trial court to forward the records to the SC for appellate review Issue: 1. y According to the testimony of the accused. appellants filed notice of appeal but the trial court denied for having been filed out of time. On the matter concerning the syllabus topic. except by the marriage of the offended party with the offender. y Because it was within the territory of the court that the appropriation constituting the crime of estafa was committed and the accused made use of the document alleged to be false at the same territory. y In an itemized account of the collections made him on the trip.

pursuant to our decision of 11 March 1994 in Republic of the Philippines vs. One of the essential requisites of a valid court proceeding is that the court hearing must have jurisdiction over of the subject matter of the case. Determined by the statute at force at the time the action was commenced -at that time General Order.armed with a MISSION ORDER. y Dela Cruz vs. Asuncion. Ratio: -Civil Procedure.Delacruz and company catches operators of cockfighting. 1979 Delacruz is charged with homicide in the CFI of Davao Issues: W/N CFI has jurisdiction over the subject matter Held: NO. fighting ensued wherein Delacruz shot Cabito Aug 2.fails to arrest operators but confiscates evidence of the crime (eg. certificate from secretary of DND is unnecessary -CFI was without jurisdiction to try the case People vs Magallanes Facts: y Two informations for kidnapping for ransom with murder (of Gargar and Lumangyao) were filed with the RTC of Bacolod City against 14 persons. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his attorney. It was only after appellants had already filed their briefs with the SC that counsels for the state raised the issue of belated appeal and lack of appellate jurisdiction of the SC in the case. were followed by the cockfight operators on their way back to the PC headquarters. including deceased Eusebio Cabito in flagrante -Delacruz and co. Gaffs. fighting cocks. Jurisdiction. Moya Facts: -Dela Cruz is a Member of the Armed Forces Intelligence and Operations Section .Section 6 of Rule 122 states that: ³«appeal must be taken 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgment or order appealed from.. Estoppel by laches to bar attacks of jurisdiction of the court had already attached Neither the public or private prosecutor moved for the dismissal of the appeal or objected to the order of the trial court to forward records to the Supreme Court for appellate review. Davao del Norte to investigate reports of illegal cockfighting being conducted . the RTC has no jurisdiction over the cases .59 was operative giving military tribunals exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by military personnel while in the performance of their official duty -Delacruz was executing a Mission Order=performing official duties -court records contain a copy of Mission Order. 5 whom are members of the PNP y Each of the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment y Prosecution rested its case and the trial court started to receive the evidence for the accused y Private prosecutors moved for the transmittal of the records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan (SB) on the ground that. DelaCruz proceeds to Maco. etc) -Delacruz and co..´ o The rule states period shall only be ³interrupted´ thus appellants only had 1 day with which to file notice of appeal with the trial court 2.

The informations must have been filed with the SB. the law governing the jurisdiction of the SB was Section 4 of P.A. represented by the OSG.Kapunan: in favor of granting bail Uy v. No. upon express provision of Section 7 of R. cases which were previously cognizable by the SB under P. y Their relationship soured and this prompted Leong to ask for her investment back. y Manila RTC acquitted Uy from Estafa but was convicted for BP 22. but are already under the jurisdiction of the courts by virtue of the amendment introduced by R.Padilla: the act of Torres was undoubtly connected with his position as station commander of PNP. others were performing as law enforcers such that the case must be prosecuted in the SB. all criminal cases in which trial has not yet begun in the SB shall be referred to the proper courts.D. No. Section 4 (R. 1606. No.YES Ruling: y At the time the informations in the said cases were filed.A. 7975) and officials classified as Grade "27" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R. Hence. 1606 y Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. and not by the result of evidence after trial.D.y y because the offenses charged were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers RTC issued an order denying the motion The prosecution. 7975. y The checks issued by Uy were all dishonored for insufficiency of funds. y A lumber store was erected using the funds Leong contributed. . as amended. No. 6758) y y Also. shall be referred to the latter courts if hearing thereon has not yet been commenced in the SB CONCURRING and DISSENTING OPINION: . No. 7975. No. CA Facts: y Uy formed a partnership with Leong to contribute to the former¶s lumber business. Issue: y Whether or not the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the violations of the Bouncing Checks Law . y Leong lodged a complaint for Estafa and a violation of BP 22.A. it retains only cases where the accused are those enumerated in subsection a. prayed for a TRO challenging the refusal of the respondent Judge Magallanes to transfer the cases to the SB Issue: w/n RTC of Bacolod City has jurisdiction over the case instead of the SB .A.A." y The SB partly lost its exclusive original jurisdiction in cases involving violations of R. y For lack of an allegation in the informations that the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers or were intimately connected with the discharge of the functions of the accused. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corruption). the subject cases come within the jurisdiction of the RTC and not of the SB y The allegation of "taking advantage of his position" or "taking advantage of their respective positions" incorporated in the informations is not sufficient to bring the offenses within the definition of "offenses committed in relation to public office.

alleging that the resolutions denying motion to quash and granting preventive suspension were issued when the Sandiganbayan had already lost jurisdiction over the subject cases (DENIED) y Municipal Mayor-classified as grade 27. 2 violations of Sec3(e). However. Ratio: y It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by the courts in criminal cases. The various dealings were held in Manila. Sandiganbayan FACTS: y Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan 3 separate informations against Binay for violation of Art 220 RPC.y Held: y y Whether the doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel applies The RTC of Manila did not acquire jurisdiction. there is no evidence that shows that jurisdiction over the BP 22 was acquired. alleging that these crimes were committed during Binay¶s incumbency in Makati y Sandiganbayan denied motion to quash (filing of charges to filing of information took 6 years thus denied his right to due process y Sandigan granted motion to suspend accused pendente lite and ordered him suspended for 90 days y RA 7975 took effect redefining the jurisdiction of the sandigan y Binay filed a motion to refer his case to the ³proper court´ for further proceedings. w/ the RTC of Batangas. was filed w/ the Sandiganbayan. Section 3(b) states that an exception to this is the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. w/ the Sandiganbayan-no jurisdiction over the matter-DENIED prosecutor Mallonga filed a petition w/ the RTC to refer the case to the Sandiganbayan by virtue of RA7975 SC: it is the Sandiganbayan w/c has jurisdiction over the cases y y y . is deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash. at the time of the commission of the offenses. the offense should have been committed or anyone of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion. Binay was receiving salary under grade 28 y SC issued a TRO based on Binay¶s motion y Magsaysay-mayor of San Pascual. Batangas. However. although he received salary less than that received by grade 27. RA3019. Sec. under Rule 117 Sec. No. In this case. 8 of the same rule says that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information. states that the accused may move to quash the complaint or information on the ground of (b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the accused or the offense charged. for overpricing a landscaping project Magsaysay filed a motion to quash the info. It can be questioned at any stage of the proceeding. another info. Binay was municipal mayor. Binay vs. and thus the RTC of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the Estafa case.3. it cannot be said that Uy is estopped to question the jurisdiction of the RTC of Manila even if she questioned it 5 years into the trial already. (related sa issue ng crimpro) y The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. the compensation act was not yet in existence at the time of the commission of the crime«At the time the act was passed. charged w/ violation of RA3019.

although different with kind of subject matter or work. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect. the RA was already in effect when the info. reference should be made to RA6758 and the index of occupational services. RA8249 was enacted ISSUE: 1. not by the consent or agreement of the parties or by estoppel. against Magsaysay was filed w/ the RTC. filing of the info. not of proof. belongs to the exception rather than the rule. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides. position titles and salary grades. index lists municipal mayors under salary grade 27.*when RA7975 took effect. also contend that pay scales determine salary grade classifications HELD: SANDIGANBAYAN RETAINS JURISDICTION OVER BINAY¶s CASE y the constitution states that in providing for the standardization of compensation of govt officials and EEs. grade w/c determines salary. are sufficiently equivalent as to level of difficulty and responsibilities and level of qualification requirements of the work to warrant the inclusion of such classes of positions w/in one range of basic compensation.4(a)(1) of PD1606 as amended by RA7975. estoppel remains the exception rather than the rule y y y y y y y . or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. RTC never had jurisdiction over the case estoppel cannot be successfully invoked. while the cases were pending. Binay had not yet been arraigned in the Sandiganbayan. congress shall take into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to. the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over the case Binay invokes the rule that the jurisdiction of a court once it attaches cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events. therefore. on the other hand. they were not classified as grade 27. and qualification requirements of the positions. therefore. salary grade is a matter of law. in Sandiganbayansubsequent happening or event no application. Sec.7. RA7975. RA6758 provides that differences in pay are to be based upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities. it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute. as defined in PD958: all classes of positions w/c. jurisdiction is determined by law. possible that an official¶s salary may be less than prescribed for his grade« to determine WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. the provision is transitory in nature and expresses the legislature¶s intention to apply its provisions on jurisdiction to criminal cases in w/c trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan the trial of Binay had not yet begun as of the date of the approval of RA7975. Had the sandigan been ousted of its jurisdiction over the case of municipal mayor after the pages of RA 7975 coupled with the filing earlier of an information for the same offense before the RTC having territorial jurisdiction and venue of the commission of the offense -Binay and Magsaysay contend that they do not come under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because 1)at the alleged time of the commission of the offenses. although of such character w/c would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the 1st instance. 3)congressional records reveal that the law did not intend municipal mayors to come under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. grade. 2)municipal mayors are not included in the enumeration of Sec. are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan «the rule is that where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy. and the qualifications required for the positions.

00 for payment of renovation of an office in the Phil. No. 3019. Col. Sanchez at times material hereto was Commanding Officer. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion for lack of merit. Managay was G-4. pursuant to R. Hence. No. Philippine Army. petitioners. COL. On the basis of the report. Issue: W/N Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case. the petitioners were also arraigned in Sandiganbayan and they pleaded not guilty. SANCHEZ and MAJOR VICENTE S. The investigating officers also referred the findings to the Provincial Prosecutor while there were court martial proceedings against the petitioners recommending the filing of an information with the Sandiganbayan against petitioners for violation of R. MANAGAY. Philippine Army. respondents. 1999 LT. Though the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction when the case was filed. HHSG. Army. THE OMBUDSMAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Philippine Army. Both of the petitioners were arraigned before the Court Martial and both pleaded not guilty. THE SANDIGANBAYAN. A pre-trial investigating officer. it no longer had jurisdiction over the case under RA 7975. stating that there was a prima facie case against petitioners for violation of the Articles of War for causing the wrongful release of P599.R. the Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction when the motion for reconsideration was denied. they initiated court martial proceedings against petitioners before the Philippine Army Permanent General Court Martial. Facts: Petitioners are officers of the Philippine Army (PA). Headquarters and Headquarters Support Group (HHSG). Ruling: No. Lt. LINO A. No. This law removing the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan over the case was passed before the motion for reconsideration was submitted. the petitioners filed the case to the Supreme Court. and that the acts complained of in the charge sheet in the court martial and the Information before the Sandiganbayan were the same or identical. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial reiterating that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case as the court martial had acquired original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal endorsed the records to the Ombudsman.A. 9th Post Engineer Detachment. Lino A.A.547. 7055. The Ombudsman filed with Sandiganbayan information against them for the violating the said RA. Major Vicente S. vs.y no double jeopardy when the accused enters a plea in a court that has no jurisdiction G. Thus. 120011 September 7. . submitted a report to the Commanding General. Therefore. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and was denied through a resolution stating that the offenses charged in the court martial are distinct and separate from each other.

A. However. the SB allowed them to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman¶s action. The Office of the Special Prosecutor moved for a reconsideration. making the case fall within the Sandiganbayan¶s jurisdiction. 7975. the SB admitted the amended information and ordered the cases transferred to the QC RTC. a.A. as principal. (2) Whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayan¶s or Regional Trial Court¶s jurisdiction. They did not qualify under the said requisites because the highest ranking principal has the rank of only a Chief Inspector and none has the equivalent of at least SG 27. an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies. Petitioner Lacson and petitioners-intervenors Acop and Zubia were members of ABRITG. Acop and Zubia as accessories before the Sandiganbayan¶s Second Divisio Upon motion by all the accused in the 11 informations. They said that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the SB to cases where one or more of the ³principal accused´ are government officials with Salary Grade 27 or higher. The issue on due process and equal protection is too shallow to deseve merit. 7975. Upon investigation. a review board modified the panel¶s ruling and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against 26 respondents. the Ombudsman filed 11 amended informations before the SB. which has original and exclusive jurisdiction under R. the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 2 of R. Pending the motions for reconsideration. Petitioner and some of the accused opposed. b. There is nothing ex post facto in the statute. asserting that under the amended informations. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation and 11 informations for murder were filed against Lacson. 8249 is unconstitutional. Thus. SPO2 de los Reyes exposed to the media that what actually happened between the members of the Kuratong Baleleng and the ABRITG was a summary execution (rub-out) and not a shoot-out.A. 7975. WON the statute is an ex-post facto law. Acop and Zubia. ex post facto laws deal with the retroactive effect of penal laws and the said R. including Lacson.LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Adherence of Jurisdiction (Exceptions) & Action of the Court when determined that it has no jurisdiction & Jurisdiction of the SB (Offense deemed committed in relation to Public Office) Facts: 11 persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. Even before the issue of jurisdiction came up with the filing of the amended informations. WON the offense of multiply murder was committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers. Ombudsman Desierto formed a panel to investigate the incident. RA 8249 was approved amending the jurisdiction of the SB by deleting the word ³principal´ from the phrase ³principal accused´ in Section 2 (a & c) of R. or PNP officials with the rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. 8249 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. the house bill for that was already introduced in Congress. There were no concrete evidence and convincing argument presented. WON the statute violates the petitioners¶ right to due process and equal protection clause because the provisions seemed to have been designed for the Sandiganbayan to continue to acquire jurisdiction over the case.A. wherein Lacson was charged only as an accessory.A.A. all the PNP officers and personnel allegedly involved in the incident were absolved from any criminal liability because it was a legitimate police operation. is procedural in nature. HELD: (1) SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF R. were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). After a reinvestigation. The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the SB. ISSUES: (1) WON Sections 4 & 7 of R. The classification made by the law was reasonable and not arbitrary. . insisting the cases should remain with the SB. Generally. a.

What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would show the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused¶s official duties and the commission of the offense charged. what the amended information contains is a mere allegation that the offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office and that is not sufficient. 518 by the CFI in Manila. 6975 and .A. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Pursuant to Sec. The murder charge against petitioner carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death hence it is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. an order requiring the prosecution and the defense to comment on whether the Court should still proceed with the trial of the case. it does not have jurisdiction since Morales was arrested in Malabon and not in Manila. Romeo Sadang. Novaliches to respond to a complaint that a person was creating trouble there. a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned to the Central Police District Command Station 2 in Novaliches.1 Act No 518 which states that person guilty of brigandage must be punished in the place in which they may be taken or from which they may have fled. was dispatched by his Commanding Officer to Dumalay Street. however. In People v. It does not even matter whether the phrase ³committed in relation to his office´ appears in the information or not. Private prosecutor moved for reconsideration. the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the cases. Pursuant to Sec. 518. In the case at bar. where he subsequently shot to death T/Sgt. REPUBLIC VS.´ Respondent Judge dismissed the Criminal Case ³for re-filing with the Sandiganbayan´ on the ground that the Sandiganbayan. Dionisio proceeded there. For a case to be within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Quezon City. US v Morales Facts: Morales was convicted of brigandage under Section 1 Act No. that CFI Manila has no jurisdiction on him because he was arrested in Malabon and was subsequently brought to Manila from their place of arrest contrary to Sec. Issue: Does CFI Manila have jurisdiction? Held and Ruling: No. While trial was already in progress.(2) THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES. No. This ³intimacy´ must be alleged in the information. and the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate it. which is what determines the jurisdiction of the court. motu propio. ³In view of the decision of the SC in the case of Deloso vs. Domingo. ASUNCION FACTS: Private Respondent Alexander Dionisio Y Manio. Montejo. the Sandiganbayn has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers when the penalty prescribed by law for the offense id higher than prision correcional. Since it was not proven that the crime of murder was committed in the discharge of their duties. Such phrase is merely a conclusion of law. He contended. the Office of the City Prosecutor filed a case with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City an information charging Dioniso with the crime of homicide. the court held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it is ³intimately connected´ with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. they must be punished in the place where they may be taken or where they may have fled. and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. citing the opinion of the Secretary of Justice that ³crimes committed by PNP members are not cognizable by the Sandiganbayan´ because ³they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts´ as provided in Section 46 of R. 1 Act No. 7. it must be shown that the offense charged in the information was committed in relation to the office of the accused. the respondent Judge issued an order.

A. Court of Tax Appeals. Shar¶a District Courts. 1860 then 1861.D. R. RATIO: INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM ³REGULAR COURTS´ IN R. Sandiganbayan is a regular court and is thus included in the term regular courts of Sec. Sandiganbayan. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction ´ Undoubtedly then. 1 of P. 6975 means civil courts.³the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special court. 46 R. Hence this petition ISSUE: Whether or not R. No.A. MTC. 6975 Police forces have traditionally been under the civil authority. Metropolitan Trial Courts. Under the amendments introduced by P.D. the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following cases: ³a. 6975. Article xiii of the 1973 Constitution.D. 1606 and amended by P. No.´ and by Section 4 thereof. all-embracing. The Declaration of Policy (Section 2) of R.A. 1379. such lower courts ³include the Court of Appeals.A. The Sandiganbayan is a court with special jurisdiction because its creation as a permanent anti-graft court is constitutionally mandated and its jurisdiction is limited to certain classes of offenses This is further strongly indicated by Sec. Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office«b. Municipal Trial Court. . which are permanent in character.A. and MCTC. are also regular courts. The Sandiganbayan was created by P. and Shari¶a Circuit Courts. 1861. IS SANDIGANBAYAN INCLUDED IN THAT TERM Regular Courts are those within the judicial department of the government. 6975 faithfully carried out this mandate. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. NO. The overwhelming sentiment of the framers of the 1987 Constitution against martial law regime and the militarization of the police forces prompted them to explicitly direct the establishment and maintenance of one police force. There could have been no other meaning intended since the primary purpose of the law is to remove from courts-martial the jurisdiction over criminal cases involving members of the PNP. 1606 which vests upon it ³all the inherent powers of a court of justice´ and places it on ³the same level as the Court of Appeals. Courts of special jurisdiction. No. This was revised by P.´ The respondent judge denied the motion. namely. 23614. The civilian character refers to its orientation and structure. Regional Trial Courts. 1861. Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution.D. The terms civil courts and regular courts were used interchangeably or were considered as synonymous by the Bicameral Conference Committee and then by the Senate and House of Representatives. 6975 on the PNP are intended to implement Section 6. 6975 VESTS THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING PNP MEMEBERS ONLY IN THE ³REGULAR COURTS´ WHICH EXCLUDES THE SANDIGANBAYAN SINCE IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY AND STATUTORILY A ³SPECIAL COURT´. No. the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. as amended by P.D.A. which grants it appellate jurisdiction over certain case decided by the RTC. No. ³national in scope and civilian in character. The mandate of Section 46 R. This civilian character is unqualified and unconditional and is therefore. the term regular courts in Section 46 of R. 2.A No. 1486 pursuant to the mandate of Section 5. Per Section 16. Accordingly. Exclusive original jurisdiction: Violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Book II of the Administrative Code of 1987.D. No. R. MeTC. Chapter 4.A 6975 is to divest courts-martial of any jurisdiction over criminal cases involving PNP members and to return or transfer that jurisdiction to the civil courts and was explicitly provided for in the original Section 68 of the House Bill No. and Chapter 2 Title VII of the RPC. No.

If he determines otherwise. 40670 is concerned. If it was in relation to his office. 96-8443 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. petitioner furthers that. Hon. judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING the respondent Judge to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether the crime charged was committed by the private respondent in relation to his office and 1. and People of the Philippines Facts Petitioner was charged for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 in an information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).R.: 126623 Date: December 12. RTC doesn¶t have jurisdiction over his case. or 2. Issue Whether RTC has jurisdiction to try petitioner¶s alleged violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act Held WHEREFORE. Hence. to proceed with the hearing of the case and to render judgment thereon.***That the public officers or employees committed the crime in relation to their office must. while MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over cases with penalties of not more than six years of imprisonment. Therefore.5 gram of shabu was involved. DIRECTING the respondent judge to transmit the records of the case to the Sandiganbayan which shall docket and proceed with the case as if the same were originally filed with it. since only about 0. WHEREFORE. This allegation is necessary because of the unbending rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the information. be alleged in the information for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over a case under Sec. the imposable penalty would not exceed prision correccional. In denying this motion. while the challenged orders in Criminal Case No. . but only insofar as the issue of jurisdiction of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G. It provides the Court of First Instance (currently. an exception is provided in the said Act. Branch 116. The Resolutions of 8 August and 13 September 1996 of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. SP No. the petition is GRANTED. CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction over the case. as presiding judge of RTC. 4(a)(2). CA GR No. the RTC) shall have ³concurrent original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable under the Act. The trial court is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. He then filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground the penalty for the offense charged should not exceed prision correccional or six years¶ worth of imprisonment and that it is the Metropolitan Trial Court that has jurisdiction over the case. MORALES V. Alfredo Gustilo. however. 96-8443 with all reasonable dispatch. 1997 Petitioner: Ernesto Morales Respondents: Court of Appeals. are AFFIRMED.´ Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). DIRECTING him to set aside the Challenged Orders. the RTC reasons out that. this petition In raising the same to SC.

the Dangerous Drugs Act specifically confers upon the RTC the jurisdiction over cases such as this. including the civil liability arising from such offender or predicated thereon. irrespective of kind. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts. value or amount thereof: Provided. A warrant was subsequently issued from the RTC of Manila. however. he can only be tried by the Sandiganbayan. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. Cases were filed in the RTC of Laguna but the case was transferred to the RTC of Manila. nature. Motion to quash was filed because 1) Only the Ombudsman had the competence to investigate and 2) As a public officer. That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. that the exclusive jurisdiction of these courts does not cover those cases which. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine. Issues: 1) Did the Ombudsman have the sole competence to investigate? 2) Can he be tried in the regular courts? Held and Ratio: 1) No. the authority is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority 2) Yes.) Bartolome v People . The offense can stand independently of the office. Municipal Trial Courts. He was identified by two people who executed extrajudicial confessions implicating Sanchez as principal in the rape-slay. He was put on arrest status and taken to DOJ. (The case did not state the decisions of the lower courts. 32. they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties. Sanchez vs. Though the Ombudsman is empowered to investigate and prosecute illegal acts of public officials. however. regardless of the prescribed penalty. It must be noted. Demetriou Facts: The Presidential Anti Crime Commission requested the filing of charges against Sanchez in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez. In the case at bar. There is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and the petitioner¶s office as municipal mayor because public office is not an essential element of the crime charged. by law.Ratio y Whether RTC has jurisdiction to try petitioner¶s alleged violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act YES. A PNP Commander µinvited¶ Sanchez for questioning. DOJ conducted a preliminary investigation. Section 32 of RA 7691 reads: Sec. fall within the RTC¶s and Sandiganbayan¶s exclusive jurisdiction. ² Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan. the Metropolitan Trial Courts.

it was upheld that when public office is not an essential ingredient of the offense such that the offense can¶t exist without the office. In the light of the Montilla case. Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor filed a case at the Sandiganbayan accusing them of the crime of Falsification of Official Document. who had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation and that the proper court was the Sandiganbayan. Hon. However. it does not appear that the official positions of Bartolome and Coronel were connected to the offense they committed. Felix had no jurisdiction because it was the Ombudmans. Upon seeing that the MCTC judge failed to conduct the second staged in the preliminary investigation. The Provincial Prosecutor approved the filing of information against Natividad and Llerina in the Tarlac RTC (where Hon. and that Hon.Facts: Rolando Bartolome and Elino Coronel are both officers of Ministry of Labor. 1994 Facts: PNP requested Tarlac Provincial Prosecutor to investigate Mayor Natividad¶s involvement in the death of Lourdes Aquino¶s husband. which directed Mayor Natividad¶s arrest with bail. Warrant of arrest was issued. embraced in Title VII of the RPC 3. Falsification of Public Document is embraced in Title IV of the RPC. at the Ramos Police Station. Nowhere does the act of falsification belong to the abovementioned cases where the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction. MCTC determined that there was probable cause to hold Natividad for murder with bail. not the provincial prosecutor. Severino Aquino. Issue: . Crimes committed by public officers and employees. Violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices and RA 1379 2. Sandiganbayan convicted them. Felix was the judge). Ricardo Buenviaje. After conducting the preliminary investigation. Llerina and Millado. Natividad v. They did not need to be government employees to falsify a public document. Under Section 4 of PD 160. including those in (Gov¶t Owned or Controlled Corporations) GOCCs. Felix February 4. During the investigation. Petitioners now question the validity of Sandigabayan¶s ruling. it does not fall under Sandiganbayan¶s jurisdiction. Manila. RTC recalled the warrant and remanded the case for further preliminary investigation. An arrest warrant was issued without bail. Felix denied Mayor Natividad¶s motion. Other crimes or offenses committed by public officers or employees including those employed in GOCCS in relation to their office. Perhaps the nearest reason for Sandiganbayan¶s taking cognizance of the case is scenario 3 in the above enumeration. and committed the latter to Tarlac Penal Colony. Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioners¶ case SC Ruling: Proceedings in Sandiganbayan are null and void ab initio. NCR. which later issued an order recalling warrant. They conspired to falsify the Civil Service Personal Data Sheet of Bartolome making it appear that he th passed the career service exam and that he was a 4 year AB student of FEU. He posted bail with the Manila RTC. Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over: 1. The information was amended. A panel of prosecutors later held that probable cause exists. PNP filed another complaint with the Tarlac Municipal Circuit Court. Mayor Nativadad alleged that there was no preliminary investigation. additionally charging Cabaong.

(Also. He was notified. the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case. He may take over the investigation at any stage from any investigative government agency.000. It is the Sandiganbayan who has jurisdiction over PCGG cases. but the 1st requirement wasn¶t because the offense charged wass murder. There was an agreement enetered into b DBP and herein respondents calling for a special stockholders meeting to elect a new board of directors. DBP appointed certain PJI stockholders as proxies. The alleged act doesn¶t fall under any of the functions of the municipal mayor in the Local Government Code. The offense could not have been committed in the performance of the mayor¶s responsibility to maintain peace and order. Natividad wasn¶t denied due process as he has been afforded every opportunity to present his counter-affidavit. Olaguer also asked some of respondent to assign shares not only to the three proxies by DBP but also to two others to be chosen by him so they can sit in the PJI board of directors. Before the cases were resolved. His investigatory powers are but directory in nature.Whether or not Hon. PJI assigned 67% of stocks to DBP.) Olaguer v Regional Trial Court Facts: Philippine Journalists Inc (PJI) executed a mortgage in favor of Developmen Bank of Philippines(DBP) for certain financing accomodations. Despite the termination. . and De Leon (Petitioners). PJI failed to comply with its obligation to DBP leading to the cancellation of appointment of petitioners and designated Olaguer. The Ombudsman is not an exclusive authority but a concurrent authority with similarly authorized agencies. and that it is PCGG which exercises the voting rights of all PJI common stocks sequestered since 1986. not exclusive original jurisdiction. Felex committed grave abuse off discretion in admitting the amended information filed by the provincial fiscal and in directing Natividad¶s arrest Held: No. then president Cory Aquino terminated his his appointment as member of the board of directors of DBP. Ratio: The latest law on Sandiganbayan (PD 1606) states that there are 2 requirements for an offense to fall under the Sandiganbayan¶s jurisdiction: 1) offense committed by a public officer must be in relation to his office. he failed to comply with his commitment which gave respondents to cancel the assignment. Velez. Olaguer contends that the agreement cannot be implemented because Olaguer claims that he has just been designated the fiscal and team leader of the PCGG assigned to PJI and that all his actions are sanctioned and reported to PCGG. and 2) that the penalty be higher that prision correccional or imprisonment for 6 years or a fine of P6. Though Olaguer was voted chairman of the board and CEO of PJI. Ombudsman has only primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Olaguer then filed a motion to dismiss the cases against him on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the persons of herein petitioners. Ratio . He also did some illegal acts which gave rise to several complaints in court against herein Petitioners. but it was he who did not appear. The motion to dismiss was denied thus this petition Issue W/N the trial court has jurisdiction over the case Held No. Olaguer still continued with the performance of his functions. Assuming arguendo that the 1st requirement was satisfied. The 2nd requirement was met.

It may not interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders and actions of PCGG. 0035 was filed in Sandiganbayan wherenin the PJI is listed as among the corporations involved in the unexplained wealth wealth case against Marcos. Saludo and Yeung Chun Ho were the authorized signatories to effect deposits and withdrawals of the funds of the two corporations. He questions the revocation of the authorization as signatory previously granted to Yim Kam Shing as a co-representative. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE V PEÑA 159 SCRA 556 FACTS: PCGG issued an order freezing the assets. subject to review only by the SC. NO. documents and records of two export garment manufacturing firms. Yam Kam Shing became a co-signatory of Yeung Chun Ho. The PCGG appointed Saludo as OIC of the two corporations with authority to manage and operate it.There is no dispute that PJI is now under sequestration by the PCGG and that civil case no. PCGG. assets and properties under the past regime fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Records also show that Olaguer was acting in behalf of the PCGG and under Section 2 of EO !$. Whether Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over the PCGG and properties sequestered and placed in its custodia legis in the exercise of its powers. PCGG filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Regional Trial court has no jurisdiction over PCGG or over the subject of the case. Whether Regional Trial Courts may interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders and actions of PCGG. The RTC do not have jurisdiction over the PCGG. II. the PCGG is a co-equal body with the RTC and co-equal bodies have no power to control the other. The RTC and the CA have no jurisdiction over the PCGG in the exercise of its powers under applicable Executive Orders and Article XVIII. 2/3 of the two corporations were subscribed to Local Investors and the 1/3 was subscribed to Hongkong Investors. The decision of the Sandiganbayan is subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court. ISSUES: I. RATIO: I. in a Memorandum addressed to the depository banks Saludo revoked the authorization previously issued because Yiam Kam Shing was a Hongkong Chinese International staying in the country on a mere tourist visa. Jurisdiction over all sequestered cases of ill-gotten wealth. the Sangiganbyana has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all cases regarding the unexplained wealth of Marcos. When OIC Saludo withdrew money from Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company for the payment of salaries Yim Kam Shing instituted an action for damages with a writ of preliminary injunction against Metropolitan bank. American Inter-Fashion Corporation and De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing Corporation. The PCGG filed this petition to the SC questioning the jurisdiction of the Trial Court over it. Both firms have been organized by joint venture agreement with the approval of the Textile Export Board. II. section 26 of the Constitution. However. In the exercise of its functions. effects. The Judge denied PCGG¶s motion to dismiss. PCGG Commissioner Bautista and OIC Saludo. HELD: I. . NO.

" did not succeed either. Mrs. 34 to try the petitioners¶ criminal case. Also. The Sandiganbayan¶s decisions and final orders are in turn subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the SC.R. 2045 lifted martial law and revoked General Order No. dummies. PCGG is a co-equal body with the Regional Trial Court and co-equal bodies have no power to control the other. ISSUE: Do military commissions or tribunals have the jurisdiction to try civilians for crimes allegedly committed during martial law when civilian courts are open and functioning? RULING: The trial contemplated in the due process clause of the Constitution is by judicial and not by executive or military process. Imelda Marcos. assets. Cases under military courts should be immediately transferred to civilian courts. business associates. . their close relatives. Presidential Proclamation No. After the incident another group of enlisted men staged a mutiny inside the Fort Bonifacio military facility in Makati. EO no 14. whether civil or criminal. Olaguer v. or nominees´ whether civil or criminal. subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court. section 2 also provides that the PCGG ³shall file all such cases. and properties illegally acquired or misappropriated by Former Pres. which is vested with the exclusive and original jurisdiction. The Board of Officers investigating the matter recommended that the case of Colonel Abadilla be endorsed for pre-trial investigation and that the appropriate charges be filed against him. 150 SCRA 144. As long as civil courts are open and functioning. military courts have no jurisdiction over civilian offenses. 22 May 1987. or related to. are lodged within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and all incidents arising from. such cases necessary fall likewise under the Sandiganbayan¶s exclusive and original jurisdiction. however it did not succeed. In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions. II. The takeover might have been a prelude to similar operations throughout the national capital. The Armed Forces Chief of Staff created Military Commission No. Military Commission No. with the Sandiganbayan which shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof´. G. Petitioners filed for a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court. 34. The investigations for both incident disclosed that Colonel Rolando N. 8 (creating military tribunals). interpreting the law as to when a person has violated it is a judicial function vested in the judiciary. Abadilla vs Ramos FACTS: A group of officers and enlisted men of the AFP seized control of the radio-television broadcasting facilities of the Republic Broadcasting System (GMA-Channel 7). While the petition was pending. All those who wish to question or challenge the PCGG¶s acts or orders must seek recourse in the Sandiganbayan. A charge sheet was prepared against the Colonel. all cases of the PCGG regarding the ³Funds. The mutiny. the Military Commission convicted and sentenced the petitioners to death by electrocution. Abadilla of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) of the AFP was one of the leaders of both the unsuccessful takeover of the GMA radio-television facilities as well as ³The Black Saturday Revolt´. By the principle of separation of powers. FACTS: Petitioners were detained by the military for subversion. Marcos. moneys. dubbed as "The Black Saturday Revolt. Metropolitan Manila. incidental to. L-54558. agents.Under Section 2 of EO 14. Military commissions or tribunals are not courts within the Philippine judicial system. No. subordinates.

His superiors could not confine him during the period of investigation because he was at large. The military authorities had jurisdiction over the person of Colonel Abadilla at the time of the alleged offenses. the military authorities began the institution of proceedings against him. 85481-82. ET. As of that time. October 18. At the time the military investigations were commenced. Colonel Abadilla was an officer of the AFP subject to military law. If such a conclusion were to prevail. ISSUE: Is the detention of Colonel Abadilla illegal? (The resolution of this issue will relate to the jurisdiction of the military authorities over the person of Colonel Abadilla. the Solicitor General contends that military jurisdiction had fully attached on Colonel Abadilla inasmuch as proceedings were initiated against him before the termination of his service in the military. ET. Abadilla is under military jurisdiction Ratio As early as March. He was detained by the military. the Assistant City Fiscal of Quezon City filed charges against Colonel Abadilla. the military authorities had jurisdiction over his person. Later. As such. his very own refusal to clear his name and protect his honor before his superior officers in the manner prescribed for and expected from a ranking military officer would be his shield against prosecution in the first place. challenging the validity of the detention of Colonel Abadilla. This jurisdiction having been vested in the military authorities. months before Colonel Abadilla was dropped from the rolls of officers. He was under investigation for his alleged participation in the unsuccessful mutinies when he was an officer of the AFP. 1990 . PS The petitioner cited various cases with regards to the lost of jurisdiction of military tribunals over discharged from the service but the Court found that this cases were inapplicable to the case (one of the cases deals with being honorably discharged).R. G. Colonel Abadilla was arrested by a group composed of the Philippine Army and the PC. the order for his arrest and confinement is null and void because he was no longer subject to military law. His earlier arrest could not be effected because he was at large. On the other hand. Respondent Major General Renato De Villa. Ramos issued General Orders No.BARRIOS. There main contention was (as to jurisdiction) when Colonel Abadilla was dropped from the rolls of officers.) HELD Col. The rule that jurisdiction over a person is acquired by his arrest applies only to criminal proceedings instituted before the regular courts. The fact that Colonel Abadilla was dropped from the rolls of officers cannot and should not lead to the conclusion that he is now beyond the jurisdiction of the military authorities. Also. AL. he was certainly subject to military law. V. it is retained up to the end of the proceedings against Colonel Abadilla. he became a civilian and as such. Nos. Well-settled is the rule that jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. WILLIAM TAN. The spouse of Colonel Abadilla together with their minor children went to the Supreme Court and filed a petition for habeas corpus. Commanding General of the PC and Vice-Chief of Staff of the AFP issued an Order for the arrest and confinement of Colonel Abadilla. This disregard for military duty and responsibility may have prompted his superiors to cause him to be dropped from the rolls of officers. respondent AFP Chief of Staff General Fidel V. It does not apply to proceedings under military law. 342 dropping Colonel Abadilla from the rolls of regular officers of the AFP. AL. 1987.Colonel Abadilla was at large when both investigations were conducted.

SC issued a TRO and ordered the respondents to comment. would be violative of their right to due process. the accused should be released since the judgment against him is null on account of the violation of his constitutional rights and denial of due process. thereby nullifying their acquittal. SC said that even during the period of martial law as long as those courts are open and functioning. It declared unconstitutional the creation of the military commissions to try civilians and nullified the proceedings convicting non-political detainees. in the public interest. RTC issued warrants of arrest. (Olaguer was sentenced to death without receiving evidence in his defense). the Secretary of Justice was ordered to file the necessary informations in the proper civil courts but it did not nullify the court martial proceedings against the other civilians petitioners who: (1) had finished serving their sentences.Facts Then President Ferdinand E. Its jurisdiction was modified (exclusive of the civil courts) to include violations of the law on firearms and other crimes directly related to the quelling of rebellion and the preservation of the country¶s safety and security. based on Cruz in which they took no part and were not heard. SC applied retroactively the rule on re-prosecution before the proper civil courts and prospectively for those released from custody. All the accused pleaded not guilty. Marcos withdrew his earlier order to transfer the case to the civil courts and for the Military Tribunal to retain it. Ratio The petitioners had been acquitted by the military court. The petitioners¶ re-prosecution. military commissions and tribunals have no jurisdiction over civilians charged with criminal offenses properly cognizable by civil courts. Martial rule ended and the military tribunals and commissions were abolished. Twelve people were arrested and charged for the crimes of murder through the use of an unlicensed or illegally possessed firearm and unlawful possession of a pistol with ammunition before the Military Tribunal. However. If a retrial. In Olaguer vs. hence. refer to a Military Tribunal a case falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts and vice versa. Enrile. . The petitioners filed before SC a petition for certiorari to annul the informations. Marcos authorized the creation of military tribunals to try and decide cases of military personnel. do not bar reprosecution for the same crime before a civil court. The Solicitor General argued that the proceedings involving civilians before a military commission were null and void because SC ruled in Olaguer that military tribunals are bereft of jurisdiction over civilians. whether of conviction or acquittal. is no longer possible. only in particular cases where the convicted person or the State shows that there was serious denial of the Constitutional rights of the accused should the nullity of the sentence be declared and a retrial be ordered. et al. Without conducting an investigation.Cruz vs. In Cruz. Enrile should be given a limited application for those who sought the annulment of the court martial proceedings and prayed for retrial in the civil courts. their decisions. SCnullified the proceedings in military courts against the civilians and ordered the re-filing of informations against them in the proper civil courts. (2) had been granted amnesty. The doctrine in Olaguer is that the trial of civilians by military process was not due process. the President may. Military Commission No. or (3) had been acquitted by the military courts. Since this was a celebrated case. Barrios defended the re-prosecution on the ground that it will not constitute double jeopardy because the nullity of the jurisdiction of the military tribunal that acquitted them prevented the first jeopardy from attaching. In Cruz vs. Yet. He also failed to provide the RTC Judge the supporting affidavits and the SC order which is the basis of filing them because there is no SC order to re-file the criminal cases. 34. not all who had been tried and sentenced by a court martial during the period of martial law. Issue Whether or not Barrios committed grave abuse of discretion by re-filing the informations Held: YES. State Prosecutor Barrios filed with RTC two informations for the mentioned crimes.

jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else. Aggrieved. Isip is charged with the crime of estafa. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. The Court rejected such claim stating that Isip failed to prove such allegations. NO. CA affirmed the ruling To summarize. 2002. On the due date. Believing that her lots were grossly. In his petition. LBP did this: Adjudicator RTC CA RTC & CA said LBP should have done this: Adjudicator DARAB RTC CA However. depriving them of the protection of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the military commission would amount to an ex post facto law or ruling. there were no serious violations of their constitutional right to due process. Decision of DARAB may be appealed directly to the RTC. And once it is so shown the court may validly take cognizance of the case. the proceedings were fair. . People He who alleges must prove his allegations. petitioned with the RTC. had no jurisdiction.The doctrine of "operative facts" applies to the case. the Adjudicator. 582. Apparently. NO. Furthermore ISSUE W/N CA was correct in ruling that decision of Adjudicator HELD 1. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the lots under the coverage of CARP for which she is claiming for just compensation. RTC Ruling: RTC dismissed the case motu proprio for failure to exhaust first administrative remedies and in violation of 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure which states that appeal of Regional Adjudicator¶s decision should first be filed at DARAB and not the RTC. RENE RALLA BELISTA G. 259. he failed to return neither the jewelries nor the proceeds of the supposed sale to the rightful owner.31. Isip received jewelries that he was supposed to sell.8M and ordered LBP to pay Belista.5M. The re-filing of the information against the petitioners would place them in double jeopardy. and that the jurisdiction of the military commission that heard and decided the charges against them during the period of martial law.58 and P317. However. DAR and LBP estimated the lots at P277. The Adjudicator decided that subject lots are valued at P2. He claimed that that the transaction was entered into in Manila. she filed a Petition for Valuation and Payment of Just Compensation against LBP at the DARAB-Regional Adjudicator for Region V. such as in this case.R. Furthermore. respectively. reduced the value of the lots to P2. The principle of absolute invalidity of the jurisdiction of the military courts over civilians should not be allowed to obliterate the "operative facts" if. ADDITIONAL CASES Isip vs. This time. LBP contends that DARAB Rules of Procedure is not applicable to them because its effectivity began February 8. Albay. the tribunal that tried the case. he claimed that the trial court in Cavite. In such case. LBP. 2003 while petition was filed at RARAD on November 11. had been affirmed by this Court. Both parties filed for motion for reconsideration. 164631 FACTS Belista inherited 8 parcels of lot located in Ligao. the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

. m.m. the RTC would have appellate jurisdiction. province of Cotabato. 2273 amending PP No. 6657. namely: Lot Y-1 with an area of 18. then recommended for the approval of the survey authority requested by the private respondents for Lot X. assisted by respondent City Legal Officer Nalangan st issued 1 Indorsements addressed to CENRO. Respondent CENR Officer Rivera.RATIO The dates are irrelevant to determine the jurisdiction of the RTC. DAR is vested with preliminary determination for just compensation but subject to challenge in courts.. Thereon. Public respondent Jonillo as Deputy Land Management Inspector. Antonino v. m. Main ratio: Sec. No. which provides that DAR shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. respondent Jonillo prepared a letter-report addressed to the Regional Executive Director of DENR for each of the sixteen applicants recommending for the private sale of the subject lots without public auction. DAR as an administrative agency cannot be granted the exclusive power to exercise eminent domain. 168 declaring Lot Y-1 and Lot Y-2 open to disposition under the provisions of Public Land Act. public respondents Jonillo and City Assessor Dinopol. Pres. Containing an area of 52.678 sq.A.. As a result. submitted an appraisal of the lots requested by private respondents. which is still equivalent to the original area. according to R. SC made a distinction between the SAC and DAR. 50 of RA 6657. Sub-ratio: Another source of conflict is Sec. the property subject of PP No. subject to private rights. m. Marcos then issued PP No. under the administration of the municipality of General Santos. Lot X was subdivided into 16 lots. 1963. On the other hand. Desierto GR No. Respondent City Mayor Nuñez.678 sq.m. 2008 FACTS On October 3. leaving only Lot X reserved for recreational and health resort site purposes.695 sq. also issued recommendation letters for each of the sixteen applicants addressed to the DENR Officer for the approval of the appraisal of the subject lots and of the private sale. if any there be. 57 of RA 6657 provides that RTC sitting as SAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner. Diosdado Macapagal issued Presidential Proclamation No. Within the same day. which is contradictory to RA 6657. Municipality of General Santos. a certain parcel of land of the public domain situated in the said municipality and more particularly described as follows: Mr-1160-D Municipal Reservation The Municipal Government of General Santos Magsaysay Park A parcel of land (as shown on plan Mr-1160-D) situated in the barrio of Dadiangas. 144492 December 18. The private respondents applied for Miscellaneous Sales Patent over portions of Lot X. DENR for portions of Lot X applied by private respondents. decision of the Adjudicator need NOT be appealed first to DARAB before a party can resort to the RTC sitting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC). together with recommendation for approval from respondent Rivera. the Survey Authority was issued to private respondents by public respondent CENR Officer Rivera. Lot X containing 15. and Lot Y-2 with 18. Pres. SC ruled that. Subsequently. which is a judicial function.020 sq. Thus. If 2003 DARAB rules are to be applied. 168 was thereafter subdivided into three lots. or a total of 52. which instituted CARP. 168: do hereby withdraw from sale or settlement and reserve for recreational and health resort site purposes.963 sq.

petitioner did not proffer any explanation at all for the late filing of the motion for reconsideration. AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS PROSECUTORY FUNCTIONS. Based on the foregoing. Under Sections 12 and 13. We find no justification why the Ombudsman entertained the motion for reconsideration. nonetheless. Even only on the basis of this fatal procedural infirmity. The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three (3) days from filing: Provided. 3019. as amended. After the respondents made such allegation. RATIO/DOCTRINE 22 Section 27 of R. and pursuant to R. at the time of the filing of the motion for reconsideration the assailed Resolution was already final. petitioner did not bother to respond and meet the issue head-on. Indeed. the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal. That only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. (2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant. No. improper or . In this case. this Court finds no reason to deviate from the general rule. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. ± (1) All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory. ISSUE W/N THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. Accordingly. the instant Petition ought to be dismissed. directive or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of written notice and shall be entertained only on any of the following grounds: (1) New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the order. unjust. Thus. Santos City to the private respondents. No. In this respect. Momongan and Cruzabra were found to have regularly performed their official functions. The alleged grave abuse of discretion imputed to the Ombudsman is found wanting in this case. 27. 6770. Section 3 of RA No. Borinaga.A. BY DISMISSING THE CHARGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS DESPITE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF DIRECT PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE CONSPIRACY TO CHEAT AND DEFRAUD THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY THROUGH THE ILLEGAL DISPOSITION OF LOT X OF THE MAGSAYSAY PARK IN VIOLATION OF LAW AND ITS CHARTER RULING The petition is DISMISSED. A motion for reconsideration of any order.A notice of sale was issued by respondent Diaz also on the same date stating therein that the subject lots will be sold. OMBUDSMAN¶S RULING The Ombudsman also ruled that public respondents Diaz. petitioner filed a verified complaint-affidavit before the Ombudsman against the private respondents together with the public respondents for violation of paragraphs e. Petitioner failed to establish that her Motion for Reconsideration was indeed filed on time. g. and for malversation of public funds or property through falsification of public documents. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) provides: SEC. Certificates of Title were issued by the Register of Deeds of Gen. while the Ombudsman's discretion in determining the existence of probable cause is not absolute.A. petitioner must prove that such discretion was gravely abused in order to warrant the reversal of the Ombudsman's findings by this Court. directive or decision. and j. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. petitioner fails. when. the charges against the respondents were dismissed.

2009 FACTS: On May 31.R.681. whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions. Grave abuse of discretion exists where a power is exercised in an arbitrary. 25 consistent with our ruling in Collantes v.53 to her own personal use and benefit. 163586 January 27. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense. where we laid down the following exceptions to the rule: 1. COURT OF APPEALS¶S DECISION: Affirmed the decision of the RTC . Sharon Castro was charged by the Ombudsman before the Regional Trial Court with Malversation of Public funds. She was claiming that the case filed against her was cognizable by the RTC and may be investigated only by the public prosecutor since she was a public employee with a salary grade 27. 7. as what the petitioner did in this case. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority. embezzled and converted her collections and other accountabilities worth P556. RTC¶S DECISION: The RTC denied Castro¶s Motion to Quash since jurisdiction of the RTC over the case did not depend on the salary grade of petitioner. SHARON CASTRO vs. she appropriated. A contrary rule would encourage innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman. HON.inefficient. misappropriated. Sandiganbayan the prosecutorial and investigatory authority of the Ombudsman in cases is cognizable by the RTC. It was found that as the Revenue Officer I of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. 2. 2001. took. Castro filed a Motion to Quash on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of authority of the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigation and to file the Information. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman. capricious. This rule is not absolute.23Well-settled is the rule that this Courtwill not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons that indicate otherwise. but upon practicality as well. 2000. 4. 8. 10. The aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court when the finding of the Ombudsman is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. When there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice. ordinance or regulation. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent. in much the same way that courts would be swamped by a deluge of cases if they have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of public prosecutors each time they decide to file an information or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. 3.Moreover. which would grievously hamper the functions of the office and the courts. or in contemplation of 26 law. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. but on the penalty imposable upon the latter for the offense charged. MERLIN DELORIA G. it pointed out that the Supreme Court expressly recognizes in the case of Uy vs. 9. 6. 5. No. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law. Marcelo. Then on August 31. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance.

The law defines such primary jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman "to take over. Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 3019. TEODORO L. unjust. The Ombudsman however ordered the Office of the Legal Affairs (OLA) . To carry out this duty. DAVID. No. The complaint alleged irregularities in the use of Congressman Lazatin of his Countrywide Development Fund (CDF).R. The law likewise allows him to direct the Special prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayan¶s jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(4c) of RA 6770. and Pelayo was able to convert his CDF into cash. Main reason: He was both the proponent and implementer of the projects funded by CDF. Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) recommended filing 14 counts of Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Section (e) of R. together with the help of Morales. from any investigatory agency of the government. thus 28 Informations were filed against petitioners before the Sandiganbayan. the investigation of such cases. state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Said resolution was approved by Ombudsman. After preliminary investigation. RATIO: The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. SUPREME COURT¶S DECISION: Supreme Court dismissed the case and held that the Ombudsman has authority to investigate and prosecute Castro¶s case against respondents in the RTC even as this authority is not exclusive and is shared by him with the regular prosecutors. MARINO A. Petitioner submitted reconsideration. it was granted by the Sandiganbayan who ordered reinvestigation. improper or inefficient. Office of the Special Prosecutor¶s (OSP) recommended dismissal for lack or insufficiency of evidence. MORALES. LAZATIN. Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. which declared that the prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman is limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. David. and ANGELITO A. at any stage.ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman had the authority to file the same in light of this Supreme Court¶s ruling in the First "Uy vs. signed the vouchers and supporting documents pertinent to disbursement and he also was the one who received such. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal. the law allows him to utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate any fiscal. PELYAO with Illegal Use of Public Funds. 147097 Facts: The Fact Finding Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a Complaint Affidavit against petitioners CARMELO F.A. This goes to show that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman." Said exercise of primary jurisdiction is not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and employees. It was alleged that petitioner. DESIERTO G. LAZATIN V. Sandiganbayan" case.

and several others Dencio Dela Pena. Michael Plata. No. assaulted him by slapping his face. Second. Decision Ombudsman was properly acting with R.A. Rosalinda Punzalan (mother).: FACTS: Alleged crime The Punzalan and Plata families were neighbors in Mandaluyong City. Section 7 of Article IX expressly provides that the then existing Tanodbayan.to review the OSP resolution. Jose Gregorio. Sec. then chased after Dela Pena. Randall Punzalan. Rules of Court) Parties: Petitioners: (shooting victim) Respondents: carrier) Punzalan & co. He was standing near the Plata home on the night of 13 August 1997. Decision of lower courts/CA: Directly filed with SC from Sandiganbayan/Ombudsman. 13.´ Thus.´ It follows then that Congress may remove any of the Tanodbayan¶s/Special Prosecutor¶s power or grant it other powers. except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution. which power had not been delegated to the OSP. Respondent Dencio Dela Pena was a house boarder of the Plata family. Sandiganbayan: the power to prosecute carries with it the power to authorize the filinf of informations. Ombudsman adopted OLA¶s resolution. placing the OSP under the Ombudsman was upheld by this court. the Ombudsman and OSP are separate entities and thus the prior does not have the power to overturn any decision made the latter.´ Irked by Dela Pena¶s response. 65. No. when the group of Petitioner Rainier Punzalan (referred to as Punzalan & co. Perez v. Robert Cagara . to be henceforth known as the Office of the Special prosecutor. kalbo. Dela Pena escaped just as Toto Ofrin of Punzalan & co. Alex ³Toto´ Ofrin (attempted to stab using balisong). saan mo binili ang sombrero mo?´ Dela Pena replied. Rainier Punzalan Dencio Dela Pena (initial victim). except those powers conferred by the Constitution on the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner¶s main allegation is that the Ombudsman had no authority to overturn OSP¶s resolution because of lack of authority to do so.) approached him and shouted ³Hoy. Article IX provides that the Ombudsman shall ³exercise with other functions or duties as may be provided by law. Ricky Eugenio. the Legislature passed R. Punzalan & co. Randall Punzalan. tried to stab Dela Pena with a balisong. Issue: Whether Ombudsman has the authority to overturn the OSP. Ratio : This Court held that giving the prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman is in accordance with the Constitution as paragraph 8. Pena (2004) Topic/Issue: Petition for Certiorari (Rule 1. checks were issued to Lazatin as reimbursement for advances he made. Robert Cagara (Plata family driver. gun Rainier Punzalan. 6770. Punzalan & co. punching and kicking him.: Dela Pena & co. ³shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law. They alleged that base on the constitution.A. OLA recommended to proceed with the trial. ay pinagtatawan pa ninyo ako. ³Kalbo nga ako. which contains Section 3. 6770 and properly exercising its power of control and supervision over the OSP when it disapproved its released resolution Punzalan v.

The Resolution of the Justice Secretary dated 6 June 2000 is REINSTATED (i. Subsequently. he encountered Cagara. Michael Plata who was nearby. the Justice Secretary on 23 March 2000 issued a Resolution reversing the Joint Resolution dated 28 July 1998 and modifying the following charges: 1. ³Hoy Robert. The CA granted their petition.. ± reduced to Attempted Homicide 3. including Attempted Murder against Punzalan & co. B. Cagara filed a criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan. all charges against Petitioners are dropped) Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) The Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari at the CA seeking to reinstate the modified criminal charges as indicated in the ruling of the Justice Secretary dated 23 March 2000. Whether the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy in this case B. all charges against Petitioners are dropped) . Grave Oral Defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan ± reduced to Slight Oral Defamation 2. From the outside of the house. magkanong ibinigay ng mga Plata sa iyo sa pagtestigo? Dodoblehin ko at ipapasok pa kita ng trabaho. Cagara was carrying a gun. the Plata¶s family driver. Cagara alleged that during a meeting at the Office of the Prosecutor of Mandaluyong. Whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of probable cause against Petitioners HELD: A. Hence this appeal. The Department of Justice (DOJ) directed that Dela Pena be likewise investigated for the charge of Attempted Homicide. Dela Pena & co. and one for Grave Threats against Toto Ofrin. and Rosalinda Punzalan (i. ISSUES: A. which Dela Pena grabbed and pointed to Punzalan & co.As Dela Pena was fleeing. Whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of probable cause against Petitioners ± NO. Attempted Murder against Punzalan & co. which caused it to accidentally fire. Grave Threats against Toto Ofrin ± reduced to Other Light Threats On reconsideration. On appeal by Dela Pena and Cagara.´ Rulings of the Prosecutor and Justice Secretary On 28 July 1998. hitting Rainier Punzalan on the thigh. the Assistant City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong issued a Joint Resolution dismissing the complaint against Rosalinda Punzalan and the charge of Attempted Murder filed by Dela Pena against Punzalan & co. the Justice Secretary on 6 June 2000 set aside the Resolution dated 23 March 2000 and directed the withdrawal of the Informations against Punzalan & co. Plata and Cagara (referred to as Dela Pena & co.e. Dela Pena. shouted ³Lumabas kayo d¶yan. Punzalan & co.) ran to the Platas¶ house and locked themselves in. but denied reinstatement of the charge of Other Light Threats against Toto Ofrin. Rosalinda told him. then filed countercharges. putang ina ninyo! Papatayin naming kayo!´ Charges filed Rainier Punzalan filed a criminal complaint against Michael Plata for Attempted Homicide and Robert Cagara for Illegal Possession of Firearm. Whether the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy in this case ± YES. to scare them off. mother of Rainier Punzalan.e. intervened by wrestling the gun away from Dela Pena.

board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted: a. v. et. See relevant Rule: Section 1. a capricious. The City Prosecutor. Absent any finding of grave abuse. 1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of probable cause against Petitioners ± NO. when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. and adequate remedy at law. 28. After Rainier Punzalan had filed his complaint. Guingona dictates that the Court should not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations or reinvestigations. Whether the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy in this case ± YES. Lack of jurisdiction defined ± when respondent does not have the legal power to determine the case. The determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the filing of an information against an offender must be left with the investigating prosecutor. Sesbre o v. 2. B. such abuse must be grave. being clothed with the power to determine the case. Aglugub Feb.RATIO: A. Rules of Court: Petition for certiorari. nor any plain. there is no appeal. oversteps his authority as determined by law. was no longer necessary since the same could be threshed out in proceedings relating to the Attempted Homicide charge filed by Rainier. whimsical exercise of judgment. which the DOJ did not deem necessary to pursue. is the best person to observe the demeanor and conduct of the parties and witnesses and determine probable cause. the DOJ directed that Dela Pena also be investigated for the charge of Attempted Homicide filed by Rainier. The Court also finds that the Justice Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse defined ± when the respondent. and ultimately. 1. al. deemed that there was no probable cause. MTJ-05-1581 Facts: . It must amount to: a. b. This was also upheld by the Justice Secretary in his Resolution. being the proper officer at the time of the incident. with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. that of the Justice Secretary. The City Prosecutor. AND c. the Court finds that there was no abuse of discretion committed by the City Prosecutor: a. In dismissing the charge of Attempted Homicide against Punzalan & co. AND c. 2005 A. ± this was in the nature of a countercharge. Rule 65. Following the definitions above. Jurisprudence provides that the question of whether or not to dismiss a complaint is within the purview of the functions of the prosecutor. 2. In dismissing the charge of Slight Oral Defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan ± the alleged defamatory statement was uttered within the Office of the City Prosecutor. speedy. 4. OR b.M. without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when any tribunal. OR b. after observing the conduct of the parties. 3. it must amount to an evasion of positive duty to act in contemplation of law. No. It is not enough that there is abuse of discretion. Therefore the complaint of Dela Pena of Attempted Homicide against Punzalan & co. jurisprudence in Samson.

6 (b). hence this case.Three complaints were filed in the sala of Judge Aglugub against Enrique Marcelino. respondent judge issued an order stating that a charge for violation of R. this is the one relevant to issue related to crimpro. Sec. Respondent also furthered that R. Respondent judge did not act on these arguing that the court already lost jurisdiction on over the case. Sesbre o filed a private complainant¶s urgent manifestation alleging that the accused were also charged of a violation of R. 8 since he has yet forwarded her resolution to the Deputy Ombudsman. Decision: YES. Laguna). complainant Atty. (only this issue will be discussed because the case is under the topic of ombudsman) Arguments: Respondent argues that R. 31 of R. ISSUES: W/N the respondent judge erred in conducting a preliminary investigation for the charge of usurpation of authority W/N respondent judge erred in not issuing warrants of arrest for failure of the accused to appear during trial W/N respondent judge erred in dismissing the complaint for violation of R. Carunungan and Nu ez did not appear.A. but petitioner did not mover for the issuance of warrants nor the cancellation of the hearing. accused Tabazon. The cases filed were for falsification and usurpation of authority. Citing Sec. neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service relative to criminal case of People v. rule 112 of the revised rules of criminal procedure.) Acting on this matter. instead he filed a complaint against the judge. hence there was no probable cause for the complaint.A 10 and praying that warrants also be issued. Upon arraignment. 5 of Rule 112 which provides that the resolution of the investigating judge is subject to review by the provincial or city prosecutor. (fact relevant to topic) Complainant filed a Motion for reconsideration and Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for issuance of Warrant of Arrest Against non. Although this may be true. thus respondent issued a warrant of arrest.A 10 was already included in the charge of usurpation of authority but was not resolved due to oversight.A. the PPO has been designated as the Deputized Ombudsman Prosecutor. one of the accused. Subsequently. Susan Nu ez.A 6770. or the ombudsman or deputy as the case may be and that under RA 6770. After conducting a preliminary examination. thus the PPO can take action on similar cases for review and appropriate action. When respondent judge forwarded the case to the PPO she based her action on Sec.A 6770 provide3s that prosecutors can (be) deputized by the ombudsman to act as special investigator or prosecutor only in certain cases. (take note of this. Complainant argues further that there is no provision in the Ombudsman Act of 1989 specifically deputizing the PPO to be the ³deputized ombudsman prosecutor´ and that respondent failed to comply with Administrative order no. respondent judge dismissed the case and forwarded the records to the Provincial Prosecutor¶s Office (PPO) for review. ESQUIVEL vs OMBUDSMAN Facts . charging him with Gross ignorance of the law.appearing accused. (because it was already forwarded to the PPO) During the hearing. 10 applies only to members of seditious organizations engaged in subversive activities . Edna Tabazon and Fely Carunungan (who are all members of the traffic unit management group of San Pedro. (violation of R. Such provision in not applicable to this case. (ombudsman act of 1989). the Provincial prosecutor has jurisdiction over the case. Marcelino did not appear. Aglugub (respondent) issued a consolidated resolution dismissing the cases of falsification and grave threats for lack of probable cause then setting for arraignment the case of usurpation of authority. Marcelino et al. 10 W/N respondent judge erred in transmitting the case to the PPO instead of the ombudsman.A10).

Petitioners failed to prove such. No. There was no abuse of discretion on the Ombudsman in disregarding the admission found in the document signed by PO2 stating tthat he was in good physical condition.The petition is without merit. information was filed against petitioners with the Sandiganbayan. Issue 1. he was forced to sign a statement in the police blotter that he was in good physical condition so that he could be released. The Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reason or absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. Held 1. No. Nueva Ecija. PO2 Eduardo also stated that while their way to the town hall. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the resolution of the Deputy Ombudsman. maltreatment. The motion was then denied by the OSP. w/n the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the filing of the information against petitioners 2. The mayor then struck him with a handgun which caused him to lose consciousness. Esquivel is the elected municipal mayor of Jaen. When he awoke. attempted murder and grave threats. They charged petitioner who is a municipal mayor of Jaen. They stated that Eduardo is a fugitive from justice and was subject to an illegal possession of firearm complaint. Petitioners were then arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charges. The records of Eduardo's complaint was forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon for appropriate action. Nueva Ecijia and his brother who is barangay captain for illegal arrest. The other charges against PO2 were dismissed. the Mayor hauled him with the use of a firearm and threatened to kill him. They forced him to board petitioner's vehicle and brought him to the Municipal Hall. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and required the petitioners to file their counter affidavits. The admission merely applied to the execution of the document and not the truthfulness of its content. The deputy ombudsman then recommended that the Mayor be indicted for the crime of grave threats only and his brother with less serious physical injuries. 2. PO2 Eduardo was about to eat lunch at his parent's house in Nueva Ecija when petitioners arrived and disarmed Eduardo of his pistol. arbitrary detention. w/n the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the criminal cases. thereafter.PO2 Eduardo and SPO1 Catacutan are both residents of Nueva Ecija but assigned with the Regional Intelligence Division in Pampanga. They then claimed grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents in rendering the resolution with the Supreme Court. Petitioner's Argument 2 . Petitioner's Argument 1 The Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to consider the evidence that PO2 Eduardo was in good physical condition. Ratio 1 The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and thereafter file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts. The mayor believed that Eduardo was among those who raided his jueteng den and arrested members of crime syndicates connected with him. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation/resolution. Decision DISMISSED.

2009 Vicente Foz. 1994. Facts: Petitioners are accused of libel in this case because of an article printed in a daily publication called Daily Panay. Jr. 1998 but it was denied. No. Issue: Whether or not the RTC of Iloilo City. the CA affirmed in toto the RTC decision. Branch 23 had no jurisdiction Ratio: Libel cases can only be instituted in 4 places according to the rules on venue in Article 360. Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over the criminal cases is clearly founded on law. raising for the first time the issue of whether or not the RTC of Iloilo City Branch 23 had jurisdiction over the case. The article was published July 5. The article spoke of Dr. . even on appeal or motions for reconsiderations. Petitioners then filed an appeal to the CA. which leaves the case to one final issue. Portigo being an incompetent physician. 167764 October 9.000 each. it is only in cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher that exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper RTC. Respondent. MTC etc. Ratio 2 Municipal mayor fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. exposing him to ³public hatred. Since his brother is a coaccused with the mayor who is covered by the RA. the muncipal mayor has a salary grade of 27. he is likewise covered though he may be only a barangay captain. 2005. Fajardo. and Danny G. Portigo. thereafter trial ensued. As the positions of municipal mayor and barangay captain were not mentioned. The Supreme Court said that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised anytime. taking advantage of the poor for his monetary gain. petitioners pleaded not guilty. Branch 23 had jurisdiction to try the case Ruling: No. On March 1. the RTC of Iloilo. on November 24. On December 4. Under the Local Government Code. People of the Philippines. Vs. the RTC of Iloilo finds petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to 3 months 11 days of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year eight months 21 days of prision correcional as maximum and a fine of P1. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on February 20. they claimed that they are not covered. 1997. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court. contempt and ridicule´.R.The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over their persons as they hold positions excluded in RA 7975. G. Petitioners. 1995. The article was supposedly libelous because it attacked a certain Dr. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in a resolution dated April 8. 2004.

Later on he issued an order lifting and setting aside the hold departure order. JUDGE MARINO S.1. Edgar Portigo is a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City. nowhere is there proof that the article was indeed first published in the city of Iloilo. 1998 in violation of SC Circular No. BUBAN A. 4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila. July 12.M. the action may be filed in the CFI of the province where he hel d office at the time of the commission of the offense. Portigo¶s residence. HELD: NO. the criminal action may be filed in the CFI of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published. and based on the information. it only alleged that Daily Panay was ³in general circulation in the province of Iloilo´.´ According to the SC. Portigo is a private individual at the time of the publication of the offense. 39-97 which provides that ³hold departure orders´ shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. Buban. if the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense. Portigo was a medical practioner in Iloilo City. Branch 23 had jurisdiction over the case. MTJ-01-1349. 2. the action may be filed in the CFI of Manila. partiality. so the venue is either the place where the article was first published or the place of his residence. Mondejar alleged that Judge Buban issued a ³hold departure order´ against her on October 23. 3. the only thing it stresses was that Dr. MTCC Tacloban City. there was no clear fact indicating that the RTC of Iloilo City. the information only alleged that ³Dr. with gross ignorance of the law. RATIO: . In the present case. Judge Buban admitted having issued the hold departure order because he was not aware of the Circular. Finally the Supreme Court stresses the importance of the fact that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the information. ISSUE: W/N Judge has jurisdiction to issue the hold departure order. this does nothing to prove that Dr. 2001 FACTS: In a sworn letter complaint Bernadette Mondejar charged Judge Marino S. In the information filed. the criminal action may also be filed in the CFI of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense. No. Whether the offended party is a public official is a public official or private person. She further alleged that respondent judge did not give her an opportunity to be heard before issuing the questioned order. Dr. If the offended party is a private individual. he said that Mondejar and counsel were duly notified of the scheduled hearing but neither appeared on said date. therefore the petition was granted and the criminal case was dismissed. He was not furnished a copy and managed to secure a copy only after he instructed his legal researcher to get one from the Executive Judge of the Tacloban RTC. serious irregularity and grave misconduct relative to a Criminal Case for violation of BP 22. BERNADETTE MONDEJAR v. In the case of Dr. Portigo is actually residing in Iloilo City. As regards the issue of denial of due process.

Said rule may be relaxed when the issue raised is one purely of law. where public interest is involved.´ Clearly then. Ramiscal filed with the Sandiganbayan an "Urgent Motion to Declare Nullity of Information and to Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest. inadequate and insufficient. Hence. Thus.´ Members of the bench must exert due diligence in keeping abreast with the development in law and jurisprudence. They apparently misappropriated for their personal use P250. it is a government entity. Sandiganbayan Facts: Jose S. Circular 39-97 is not a new circular.00 from the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS). 361. As such. Judges should always be vigilant in their quest for new developments in the law so they could discharge their duties and functions with zeal and fervor. The prosecution filed for a Motion for Reconsideration."2 He argued that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case because the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 25741 for lack of jurisdiction. and Section 7 of PD1606 apply. Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of procedure. speedy. the instant special civil action for certiorari. Thus. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case at hand.6 Certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal. b) The resolution of the Sandiganbayan was a final order that finally disposed of the case. Rule 3. and where strict application of the rules would frustrate the ends of justice. Certiorari may also be availed of where an appeal would be slow. Jr. People vs. Manuel Satuito. Par. which was denied. as in fact it is the system that manages the retirement and pension funds of those in the military service. and it was an error on the part of respondent judge to have issued one in the instant case. Also. 1 of the circular specifically provides that ³hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.200. The Sandiganbayan this time sustained respondents' contention that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The AFP-RSBS was created by Presidential Decree No. The Urgent Motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct exhorts judges to be ³faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts do not fall within the ambit of the circular. Its purpose and functions are akin to those of the GSIS and the SSS. Canon 3. Basic is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules may be availed of only where there is no appeal. Julian Alzaga. .318. and in case of urgency. Issues: a) W/N Sandiganbayan grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for lack of jurisidiction b) W/N Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying prosecution¶s motions for reconsideration Ratio: a) YES. Ramiscal.Circular 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second level courts.. Elizabeth Liang and Jesus Garcia were all charged with Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan. it reconsidered its earlier Resolution and ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. the Government is not precluded from later on adding to the funds in order to provide additional benefits to the men in uniform. These state that: Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. or any plain. The above considerations indicate that the AFP-RSBS is imbued with public interest. While it may be true that there have been no appropriations for the contribution of funds to the AFP-RSBS.

979. When Act 3326 was passed into law. prosecutors). Panaguiton complied but the CA still denied. which provides for the prescriptive periods of statutes without their own (4 years for BP22). The verification was intended simply to secure an assurance that the allegations therein are true and not a mere product of fiction.e. but was dismissed.1. YES. YES. the . the chief state prosecutor directed the city prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation. Panaguiton made demands to pay but to no avail. A certified true copy was actually attached in Annex A for the August 9 resolution.2.459. Deficiency in the verification may be excused or dispensed with as this doesn¶t affect jurisdiction. S. P.1.2. W/N The filing of the complaint in the prosecutor¶s office tolled the prescriptive period.1. W/N verification subsequently attached by Panaguiton substantially complies with the rules P. The photocopy attached was for the August 3 resolution and this wasn¶t the resolution the petitioner seeks to be reversed. Panaguiton appealed to the DOJ.1. Cawili and Tongson issued checks signed by both of them to Panaguiton but these were dishonored upon presentation. ISSUE Procedural: P. NO. Case shouldn¶t have been dismissed. Panaguiton filed certiorari petition in CA but was dismissed for failure to attach a proper verification and certification for non-forum shopping and that the DOJ resolution (saying prescription has set in) dated August 9 2003 submitted was a mere photocopy. However in another resolution the DOJ ruled that prescription has set in. Case against him was dismissed but afterwards upon finding that Tongson might have indeed signed the checks. Tongson moved to drop his name from the case as his signatures were allegedly falsified. She claims that the filing of the complaint on August 24 1995 did not interrupt the running of the period as the law refers to judicial and not administrative proceedings.1. He formally filed a complaint on August 24 1995 for violating BP 22 before the City Prosecutor¶s Office.PANAGUITON V DOJ GR 167571 FACTS Cawili and his business associate Tongson borrowed from Panaguiton (petitioner) sums amounting to 1. S. Thus. In 1999 assistant prosecutor dismissed the complaint for the action has prescribed pursuant to Act 3326. Filing of the complaint in the prosecutor¶s office tolls the prescriptive period for violations of BP22. At times the court even waives the requirement or just allows corrections. RATIO P. Tongson moved for reconsideration but denied.2. He moved for reconsideration two times before it was held that the prescription had not elapsed. preliminary investigation of cases was done by the justices of peace. and not by agents of the executive department (i. Subsequent attachment substantially complied with requirements of the law.1. HELD P. P. W/N dismissal of the case for failure to attach certified true copy was warranted (he submitted only a photocopy) Substantive: S.

. Aggrieved parties who do not sleep on their right should not be allowed to suffer simply because of circumstances beyond their control. As seen in this case. To rule otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on account of delays not under his control. various conflicting opinions of the DOJ delayed his cause. since then. the conduction of a preliminary investigation was moved to the function of the executive department. Today. the term proceedings must be understood to mean either executive or judicial proceedings. However.prevailing rule at that time is that prescription is tolled once filed with the justice of peace (a judicial process). any type of investigation may ultimately lead to sufficiently toll prescription. With this interpretation.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful