1. John committed acts of lasciviousness against Maria with the use of a loose firearm.

Which court has jurisdiction over the case? Explain your answer with legal justification. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case. Under RA 7691, which amended Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MeTC, MTC and MCTC) in criminal cases have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, while the regional trial courts have jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment of more than 6 years, also irrespective of fine. Also in RA 10591 or the Act Providing for a Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof, provides: SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty. In the instant case, the act committed was acts of lasciviousness which the offense of acts of lasciviousness which is punishable by prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, is within the jurisdiction of the MeTC, MTC or MCTC; illegal possession of firearms, on the other hand, is punishable by at least prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years), depending on the type of firearm under Section 28 of RA 10591, is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. RA 10591 states that if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed. In view of the foregoing, considering that the acts of lasciviousness, which was committed with the use of firearm, has a lower maximum penalty than that for illegal possession of firearm, it is the penalty for the latter that shall be imposed: at least prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) to reclusion perpetua (imprisonment for at least 30 years). The Regional Trial Court has the jurisdiction over the case. 2. Can the prosecutors of DOJ conduct preliminary investigation against a public officer who is charged with plunder? Explain your answer with legal justification.

Yes, the prosecutors of the Department of Justice can conduct conduct preliminary investigation against a public officer who is charged with Plunder. Existing jurisprudence tells us that

the Office of the Ombudsman and the DOJ have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation on charges filed against public officers and employees, including violations of The Plunder Law (R.A. 7080). However, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such cases. Therefore, the DOJ prosecutors are not precluded from conducting any investigation of cases against public officers involving violations of penal laws; however, if the cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, then the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction, may take over at any stage.1

Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. Nos. 92319-20 October 2, 1990, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law