You are on page 1of 13

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. Nos. 161784-86. April 26, 2005] DINAH C. BARRIGA, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (4TH DIVISION) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for the nullification of the Resolution[1] of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 27435 to 27437 denying the motion to quash the Informations filed by one of the accused, Dinah C. Barriga, and the Resolution denying her motion for reconsideration thereof. The Antecedents On April 3, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan for the admission of the three Amended Informations appended thereto. The first Amended Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 27435, charged petitioner Dinah C. Barriga and Virginio E. Villamor, the Municipal Accountant and the Municipal Mayor, respectively, of Carmen, Cebu, with malversation of funds. The accusatory portion reads: That in or about January 1996 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Carmen, Province of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused VIRGINIO E. VILLAMOR and DINAH C. BARRIGA, both public officers, being thenthe Municipal Mayor and Municipal Accountant, respectively, of the Municipality of Carmen, Cebu, and as such, had in their possession and custody public funds amounting to TWENTY- THREE THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN AND 20/100 PESOS (P23,047.20), Philippine Currency, intended for the payment of Five (5) rolls of Polyethylene pipes to be used in the Corte-Cantumog Water System Project of the Municipality of Carmen, Cebu, for which they are accountable by reason of the duties of their office, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, take, embezzle and convert into their own personal use and benefit said amount of P23,047.20, and despite demands made upon them to account for said amount, they have failed to do so, to the damage and prejudice of the government. CONTRARY TO LAW.[2] The inculpatory portion of the second Amended Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27436, charging the said accused with illegal use of public funds, reads: That in or about the month of November 1995, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Carmen, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable

537. both public officers. charged the same accused with illegal use of public funds.[4] The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and admitted the Amended Informations.representing a portion of the Central Visayas Water and Sanitation Project Trust Fund (CVWSP Fund) intended and appropriated for the projects classified under Level I and III particularly the construction of Deep Well and Spring Box for Level I projects and construction of water works system for Level III projects of specified barangay beneficiaries/recipients.305. in the Municipality of Carmen. particularly the barangay beneficiaries of Levels I and III of CVWSP. conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other. a barangay which was not included as a recipient of CVWSP Trust Fund. Barriga. in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office. Cebu. Cebu. to the damage and prejudice of the government. The petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the said Amended Informations on the ground that under Section 4 of Republic Act No. as follows: That in or about the month of January 1997. conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other. willfully unlawfully and feloniously disburse and use said amount of P1. of the Municipality of Carmen. of the Municipality of Carmen. accused used said public funds to a publicpurpose different from which it was intended and appropriated. had in their possession and control public funds in the amount of ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIVE PESOS (P1.96 for the construction and expansion of Barangay Cantucong Water System. and as such. Philippines. intended and appropriated for the projects classified under Level I and Level III. respectively. CONTRARY TO LAW. unlawfully and feloniously disburse and use said amount of P267. particularly the barangays which were CVWSP Trust Fund beneficiaries. VILLAMOR and DINAH C.305. particularly the construction of Spring Box and Deep Well for Level I projects and construction of water works system for Level III projects of specified barangay beneficiaries/ recipients. had in their possession and control public funds in the amount of TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN and 96/100 (P267. 8294. representing a portion of the Central Visayas Water and Sanitation Project Trust Fund (CVWSP Fund). and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office. Carmen. and for which fund accused are accountable by reason for the duties of their office. She averred that the Amended Informations failed to allege and show the intimate relation between the crimes charged and her official . docketed as Criminal Case No. did then and there.Court.[3] The accusatory portion of the third Amended Information.00) Philippine Currency. thus. being then the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Accountant. respectively. above-named accused Virginio E. above-named accused VIRGINIO E. Province of Cebu. BARRIGA. both public officers. the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crimes charged. to the damage and prejudice of the government. CONTRARY TO LAW.00 for the Spring Box of Barangay Natimao-an. thus. did then and there willfully. being then the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Accountant. Villamor and Dinah C. a project falling under Level II of CVWSP.96) PESOS. or sometime prior or subsequent thereto. 27437. and as such. Cebu. and for which fund accused are accountable by reason of the duties of their office. accused used said public fund to a public purpose different from which it was intended or appropriated.537.

Executive Secretary[12] apply only where the office held by the accused is not a constituent element of the crimes charged. the office must be a constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute. 2003. her position as municipal accountant is classified as Salary Grade (SG) 24. Montejo[11] and Lacson v.[7] and Lacson v. the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution[9] denying the motion of the petitioner. what applies is . denied. not merely accidental. hence. Montejo is the exception. controlling are the specific factual allegations in the Informations that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of her official duties and the commission of the offenses charged. In fine. The petitioner thus filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. She also pointed out that the funds subject of the said Amended Informations were not under her control or administration. Section 2. the offense would not exist without the office. Title VII.[10] i. is improper. She alleged that the felonies of malversation and illegal use of public funds. seeking to nullify the aforementioned Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.[8] She further contended that although the Amended Informations alleged that she conspired with her co-accused to commit the crimes charged. with the graft court holding that the applicable ruling of this Court was Montilla v.[6] Soller v. The graft court emphasized that the rulings of this Court in People v.duties as municipal accountant. It posits that any error committed by the Sandiganbayan in denying the petitioner’s motion to quash is merely an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction.e. she cited the rulings of this Court in People v. She averred that the prosecution and the Commission on Audit admitted. from a denial of a motion to quash amended information. Sandiganbayan. the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the said crimes. that an offense is committed in relation to public office when there is a direct. Executive Secretary. likewise. Moreover. Hilario. the graft court opined. In its comment on the petition. The petitioner claims that the graft court committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the same. the Office of the Special Prosecutor averred that the remedy of filing a petition for certiorari. and the ruling of this Court in People v. In such cases. in a legal sense. To bolster her stance.. It asserts that as ruled by the Sandiganbayan. which are conditions sine qua non for the graft court to acquire jurisdiction over the said offense. The motion for reconsideration thereof was. they failed to allege and show her exact participation in the conspiracy and how she committed the crimes charged. The graft court further held that the offices of the municipal mayor and the municipal accountant were constituent elements of the felonies of malversation and illegal use of public funds. of the Revised Penal Code. Book II. and no less than this Court held inTan v. the mere allegation in the Amended Informations that she committed the offenses charged in relation to her office is not sufficient as the phrase is merely a conclusion of law. in other words. Sandiganbayan. relation between the crime charged and the office of the accused such that. Montejo. are not included in Chapter 11. for which she is charged.[5] that a municipal accountant is not an accountable officer. the Information must contain specific factual allegations showing that the commission of the crimes charged is intimately connected with or related to the performance of the accused public officer’s public functions. Hilario. The petitioner also posited that although the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office. On October 9. the basic rule is that enunciated by this Court in Montilla v.

the ruling of this Court in Montilla v. and even if the petitioner’s position as municipal accountant is only classified as SG 24. which by their nature fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Ruling of the Court The petition has no merit.[13] which amended Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. that the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over crimes and felonies committed by public officers and employees. Act No. there is no need for the Prosecutor to state in the Information specific factual allegations of the intimacy between the office and the crime charged. Act No. Montejo. It further claims that the petitioner has been charged of malversation and illegal use of public funds in conspiracy with Municipal Mayor Virginio E.[14] There are two classes of public office-related crimes under subparagraph (b) of Section 4 of Rep. the Sandiganbayan still has jurisdiction over the said crimes. through improper or irregular conduct. such offenses or felonies which are intimately connected with the public office and are perpetrated by the public officer or employee while in the performance of his official functions. inter alia. in a legal sense. 8249. provides. the crimes of malversation and illegal use of public funds are classified as crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office. under Section 4 of Rep. However. 8249: first. Villamor. those crimes or felonies in which the public office is a constituent element as defined by statute and the relation between the crime and the offense is such that. or that the accused committed the crime in the performance of his duties. is a matter of defense. We agree with the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that based on the allegations of the Amended Informations and Rep. Hilario and not People v. that she is not an accountable officer. It insists that there is no more need for the Amended Informations to specifically allege intimacy between the crimes charged and the office of the accused since the said crimes can only be committed by public officers.[18] . Furthermore. the Sandiganbayan likewise has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes or felonies committed by the public officers and employees enumerated in Section (a) (1) to (5) under the second classification if the Information contains specific factual allegations showing the intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office of the accused. Act No. Act No. The Office of the Special Prosecutor further avers that the petitioner’s claim. 8249. Rep. it has original jurisdiction over the crimes of malversation and illegal use of public funds charged in the Amended Informations subject of this petition. and the discharge of his official duties or functions . Considering that the public office of the accused is by statute a constituent element of the crime charged.[15] second.whether improper or irregular.[16] The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes and felonies under the first classification.[17] The requirement is not complied with if the Information merely alleges that the accused committed the crime charged in relation to his office because such allegation is merely a conclusion of law. 8249. the offense committed cannot exist without the office. 1606. at least one of whom belongs to any of the five categories thereunder enumerated at the time of the commission of such crimes. who occupies a position classified as SG 27.

The public office of the accused is a constituent element in both felonies. such funds or property. the public fund or property is applied to the personal use and benefit of the offender or of another person. Villamor is a constituent element of malversation and illegal use of public funds or property. citing Viada. or even a private individual. the prosecution is burdened to prove the following elements: (1) The offenders are accountable officers in both crimes.[21] the Court.[20] We agree with the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that the public office of the accused Municipal Mayor Virginio E. The funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable.Two of the felonies that belong to the first classification are malversation defined and penalized by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. He has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. for the same reasons . Accused mayor’s position is classified as SG 27. or has consented to. accomplice or abettor in the crime of malversation of public funds. Since the Amended Informations alleged that the petitioner conspired with her co-accused. In United States v. may be liable for malversation or illegal use of public funds or property if such public officer or private individual conspires with an accountable public officer to commit malversation or illegal use of public funds or property. the prosecution must prove the following essential elements: (a) (b) (c) The offender is a public officer. the municipal mayor. and (d) He has appropriated. in committing the said felonies. the public fund or property is applied to another public use. (3) In illegal use. had the occasion to state: Shall the person who participates or intervenes as co-perpetrator.[19] For the accused to be guilty of illegal use of public funds or property. taken or misappropriated. the fact that her position as municipal accountant is classified as SG 24 and as such is not an accountable officer is of no moment. (2) The offender in illegal use of public funds or property does not derive any personal gain or profit. in malversation. It must be stressed that a public officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of her official position. have the penalties of this article also imposed upon him? In opposition to the opinion maintained by some jurists and commentators (among others the learned Pacheco) we can only answer the question affirmatively. the Sandiganbayan still has exclusive original jurisdiction over the cases lodged against her. Ponte. permitted the taking by another person of. the offender in certain cases profits from the proceeds of the crime. in malversation. For the accused to be guilty of malversation. or through abandonment or negligence. committed by a public officer. and the illegal use of public funds or property defined and penalized by Article 220 of the same Code.

concur. if the position of one of the principal accused is classified as SG 27. hence. Rep. 653) The reasoning by which Groizard and Viada support their views as to the correct interpretation of the provisions of the Penal Code touching malversation of public funds by a public official. 7975. The determinative fact is that the position of her co-accused. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING. to the provisions of Act No. Austria-Martinez.. . in the case of the United States vs. 2. The name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor. French jurisprudence has also settled the question in the same way on the ground that the person guilty of the crime necessarily aids the other culprit in the acts which constitute the crime. the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the offense. and we have heretofore. and Chico-Nazario. is equally applicable in our opinion. is the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee. Dowdell (11 Phil. Puno. Tinga. SO ORDERED.[23] We reiterate that the classification of the petitioner’s position as SG 24 is of no moment. the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. the fact that as part of his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it. 1740 defining and penalizing that crime. she is not obliged to receive public money or property. imposed the penalty prescribed by this section of the code upon a public official who took part with another in the malversation of public funds. is classified as SG 27. p. Even then. a mere clerk in the provincial or municipal government may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same. 4th edition. and that a private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation. although it was not alleged. though it did appear that they were in the hands of his coprincipal by virtue of the public office held by him. she is not an accountable officer within the context of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. (Chairman). Costs against the petitioner.[22] The Court has also ruled that one who conspires with the provincial treasurer in committing six counts of malversation is also a co-principal in committing those offenses.(mutatis mutandis) we have already advanced in Question I of the commentary on article 314. 4). Hence. an accountable public officer is one who has actual control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office.. and under the last paragraph of Section 2 of Rep. under the said article.” (Vol. We agree with the petitioner’s contention that under Section 474 of the Local Government Code. the municipal mayor. and in fact clearly appeared. Indeed. it cannot thereby be necessarily concluded that a municipal accountant can never be convicted for malversation under the Revised Penal Code. Act No. that those funds were not in his hands by virtue of his office.[24] The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee. JJ. nor is she obligated to account for the same.

where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent. 1379. and all officers of higher rank. at the time of the commission of the offense: "(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher. vice-mayors. AS AMENDED BY RA 8249 Section 4. "(b) City mayors. engineers and other provincial department heads. "(d) Philippine army and air force colonels. "(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions. specifically including: "(a) Provincial governors. Book II of the Revised Penal Code. "(g) Presidents. otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers. and "(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor. vice-governors. "(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. assessors.SECTION 4. Title VII. and Chapter II. 3019. P. or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations. . "(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution. as amended. "(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher. members of the sangguniang panlungsod. city treasurers. directors or trustees. 1606. acting or interim capacity. 6758). otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher. state universities or educational institutions or foundations. naval captains. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows: "a. Section 2. "(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher. "(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants. without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution. Republic Act No. Other offenses orfelonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office.D. assessors engineers and other city department heads. of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. "b. Violations of Republic Act No.

1. 2. issued in 1986. 6758. metropolitan trial court. however. That where the civil action had therefore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered. including those employed in govemment-owned or controlled corporations. accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees. "Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding."c. resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction orof their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. "In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade '27' or higher. municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court ' as the case may be. and jointly determined in.14 and 14-A. certiorari. prohibition. pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. habeas corpus.2. 2. exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court. said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court. the Office of the Ombudsman. That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. including quo warranto. 1. as the case may be. for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court. "The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus. arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts. issued in 1986: Provided. 14 and 14A. as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature. injunctions. as amended. 129. issued in 1986. 1. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court. shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. "In case private individuals are charged as co-principals. the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action. except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments. through its special prosecutor. as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate. shall represent the People of the Philippines." . the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with. 129. they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them. The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned. or military or PNP officers mentioned above. and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided. relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals. 14 and 14-A.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties. "3. refunds of internal revenue taxes. seizure. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals. "5.SECTION 7. orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction. refunds of internal revenue taxes. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. Jurisdiction. Decisions. where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action. RA 9282 Section 7. or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs. forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto. "4. fees or other charges. . fees or other money charges. fines. . "2. in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial. fees or other charges. detention or release of property affected. as herein provided: "1. penalties in relations thereto.The CTA shall exercise: "a. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments. or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. penalties in relation thereto. 7. or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

"6. exclusive of charges and penalties. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code. respectively. claimed is less than One million pesos (P1. where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties. 8800. commodity or article. That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount o taxes and fees. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry. "2. "7. Over appeals from the judgments. the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action. "b. and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided. and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized. commodity or article. resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them.000. of the Tariff and Customs Code. involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302. in the case of nonagricultural product. in their respected territorial jurisdiction. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses: "a. . and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding. and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA. however. the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with.000. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: "1.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate.

That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees. Jurisdiction in criminal cases.000. Over appeals from the judgments. however. resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court."b. SECTION 5. BP 129. claimed is less than One million pesos (P1. exclusive of charges and penalties. "b. "c. Over petitions for review of the judgments. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided: "1. fees. RA 8369 ." SECTION 20. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. in their respective jurisdiction. Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court. resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts. except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. charges and penalties: Provided. resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction. AS AMENDED BY RA 7691 Section 20. in their respective territorial jurisdiction. Over petitions for review of the judgments. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases: "a. tribunal or body.000. "2. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court.

shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Ptesidential Decree No. dependent o neglected children. petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children. . the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. termination. e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment. otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines".which are acts of gender based violence that results. i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. That if the minor is found guilty. 603. and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood. 603. declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements. 5. Executive Order No. b) Petitions for guardianship. custody of children. g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned. 56. (Series of 1986). however. or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. habeas corpus in relation to the latter. sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women. and . integrity and freedom movement. d) Complaints for annulment of marriage." as amended by Republic Act No. or are likely to result in physical. as amended. The sentence. otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code". Jurisdiction of family Courts. j) Violations of Republic Act No.The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases: a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided. f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains. c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof. and other related laws. and k) Cases of domestic violence against: 1) Women . otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse.Sec. Exploitation and Discrimination Act. 7658. the suspension. 7610. 209. h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home.

and "(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine. Municipal Trial Courts. cruelty." . value or amount thereof: Provided. including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon. however. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan. If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts. violence. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts. AS AMENDED BY RA 7691 Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. BP 129. SECTION 32. and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties. neglect. irrespective of kind. exploitation. the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties.2) Children . said incident shall be determined in that court. nature. That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. the Metropolitan Trial Courts. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: "(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction. If an act constitutes a criminal offense. 32. and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.which include the commission of all forms of abuse.