Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Procedure - Juridiction
Criminal Procedure - Juridiction
BALANAY
Subject: Criminal Procedure
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the
Department of Justice to file appropriate charges against Antonio
L. Sanchez, Mayor of Calauan, Laguna, and several persons in
connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the
killing of Allan Gomez. Acting on this request, the Panel of State
Prosecutors conducted a preliminary investigation. Sanchez was
absent but was represented by his lawyer. On account of an
invitation from a PNP Commander, Sachez appeared for
investigation. However, when he was positively identified by the
persons who executed confessions implicating him as principal in
the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez, he was placed
on arrest status and was taken to the DOJ in Manila for an inquest
proceeding. The prosecutors then filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Calamba, Laguna, seven informations charging Antonio
Sanchez and 6 others with rape and killing of Sarmenta, and the
killing of Allan Gomez as aggravating circumstance but due to the
tense and partisan atmosphere in Laguna, the case was later on
transferred and raffled to Pasig, Metro Manila under the sala of
Judge Harriet Demetriou. Antonio Sanchez then filed a motion to
quash the informations on the grounds that only the ombudsman
has the competence to conduct investigation of all cases
involving public officers like him and that as a public officer, he
can be tried for the offense only the by the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not only the ombudsman has the competence
to conduct investigation of all cases involving public officers.
2. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD:
1. It is not only the Ombudsman has the competence to
conduct investigation of all cases involving public officers. Though
the Ombudsman is indeed empowered to investigation and
prosecute, any illegal act or omission of any public official, this
authority is bit an exclusive authority but rather a shared or
concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. In fact,
other investigatory agencies of the government such as the DOJ,
in connection with the charge of sedition, and the Presidential
Commission on Good Governance, in ill gotten cases may conduct
the investigation.
2. The Reginal Trial has the jurisdiction over the case. Under
Section 4, Par. a of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. 1861, the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are only cases
involving (1) Violations of R.A. No. 3019 as amended or otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, R.A. 1379 and
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the RPC, and (2) Other offenses or
felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to
their office. In the case at hand, the crime of rape with homicide
with which Sanchez stands charged obviously do not fall under
No. 1 which deals with graft and corruption cases neither it is
covered by No. 2 because it is not an offense committed in
relation to his office. Further, there is no direct relation between
the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and the
Petitioners office as municipal mayor because public office is not
an essential crime of the crime charged. The offense can stand
independently of the office. Hence, being an ordinary offense, the
case is triable by the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan.
MAE NIAGARA M. BALANAY
Subject: Criminal Procedure
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
BONDOC vs SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 71163-65
FACTS:
Two (2) employees of the Central Bank and nine (9) private
individuals, were charged with several felonies of estafa thru
falsification of public documents in three (3) separate
informations filed by the Tanodbayan with the Sandiganbayan.
The actions were docketed as Criminal Cases Numbered 5949 to
5951 and were assigned to the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan.
Before the prosecution rested its case, the Tanodbayan filed
with the Sandiganbayan another set of three (3) indictments, this
time against Carlito P. Bondoc and Rogelio Vicente, both private
individuals, charging them with the same crimes involved in
Cases No. 5949 to 5951 as principals by indispensable
cooperation. The actions against Bondoc and Vicente were
docketed as Criminal Cases Numbered 9349 to 9351 and were
assigned to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. Bondoc
moved to quash the informations on the basic theory that as a
private individual charged as co-principal with government
employees, he should be tried jointly with the latter pursuant to
Section 4 (paragraph 3) of PD 1606, as amended, hence, the
separate proceedings commenced against him were invalid, for
lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the offenses and his
person. The Third Division denied Bondoc's motion to quash in a
ruling that a the joint trial of private individuals and public
employees charged as co-principals, dealt with in the cited
provision of law, is not a jurisdictional requirement and Bondoc's
theory would practically make the Court's "jurisdiction over a
private individual charged as co-principal, accomplice or
accessory with a public officer or employee dependent upon such
private individual" (as by evading service of legal processes until
"joint trial is no longer feasible).
ISSUE:
HELD:
AZARCON vs SANDIGANBAYAN
268 SCRA 747
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD: