Topic: Elements and Requisites of Criminal
Jurisdiction
Facts:
In an Information, the accused, Antiporda and
company, was charged with the crime of
kidnapping in an information. Due to the
prosecutor informing the court of inadequacies
in the allegations of the complaint, The court
gave the prosecution 30 days with which to
submit the amendments of the information. The
amended information added that
“Antiporda, Jr, being the Municipal
Mayor of Buguey, Cagayan in the
exercise of his official duties as such and
taking advantage of his position … and
subsequently brought and detained him
illegally at the residence of accused
Mayor Licerio Antiporda, Jr. for more
than five (5) days.”
Procedure:
1. Accused filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion
praying for a reinvestigation and for issuance of
warrants of arrest be deferred which the
Ombudsman denied
2. Accused filed a Motion for New Preliminary
Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance and/or
Recall Warrant of Arrest Issued. The same was
denied and the court stated that the accused
have yet to submit themselves to the
jurisdiction of the Court, the accused are not in
a position to be heard on this time.
3. Subsequently, the accused filed a Motion to
Quash the Amended Information for lack of
jurisdiction. This motion was ordered by the
Sandiganbayan to be ignored for the accused
had refused or failed to submit to their
jurisdiction.
4. The accused then filed an MR where they said
they stated that its filing of a Motion to Quash
and appearance of their counsel during the
hearing amounted to voluntary appearance.
The Sandiganbayan denied the MR.
5. The accused petition for review raised
the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction
in the original information since the
original information lacked the facts
necessary to acquire jurisdiction and
cannot subsequently acquire the
jurisdiction through amending the
information.
Issue: WON Sandiganbayan had acquired criminal
jurisdiction?
Ruling: YES on account of Estopped
Criminal Jurisdiction is defined as “necessarily the
authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose
the punishment for it.” (People vs. Mariano). The
requirements of criminal jurisdiction is
“1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized
to take cognizance of, (2) the offense must have been
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and (3) the
person charged with the offense must have been brought
in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or
upon his voluntary submission to the court.”(Arula vs.
Espino),
The jurisdiction of the offense is authorized by law
because:
According to Section 4 par (a) of PD 1606, the
Sandiganbayan has exclusive and original jurisdiction in
offenses and felonies of public officers and employees in
relation to their office is higher than prision
correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years,
otherwise the jurisdictions is with the RTC.
It is undisputed that the Sandiganbayan had territorial
jurisdiction over the case.
Lastly the petitioners had voluntary submission to the
Court's authority. The petitioners argue that the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction because the original
information did not allege that one of the accused,
Antiporda, took advantage of his position as mayor to
kidnap the victim. However they also allege that that the
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over their motion to
quash and the persons of the accused.
Although the original Information didn’t mention the
offense being office-related and so the Sandiganbayan
did not acquire jurisdiction over the offense charged, the
court held the accused estopped in assailing the
jurisdiction when in their MR stating the Sandiganbayan
to have jurisdiction and that the offense was work
related.
A party cannot invoke jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponent, and after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction.