G.R. No. 164007 August 10, 2006
LT. (SG) EUGENE GONZALES, LT. (SG) ANDY
TORRATO, LT. (SG) ANTONIO TRILLANES IV, CPT.
GARY ALEJANO, LT. (SG) JAMES LAYUG, CPT.
GERARDO GAMBALA, CPT. NICANOR FAELDON,
LT. (SG) MANUEL CABOCHAN, ENS. ARMAND
PONTEJOS, LT. (JG) ARTURO PASCUA, and 1LT.
JONNEL SANGGALANG, Petitioners,
vs.
GEN. NARCISO ABAYA, in his capacity as Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and B.
GEN. MARIANO M. SARMIENTO, JR., in his capacity
as the Judge Advocate General of the Judge
Advocate General’s Office (JAGO), Respondents.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Facts:
For our resolution is the Petition for Prohibition (with
prayer for a temporary restraining order) filed by the
above-named members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), herein petitioners, against the AFP
Chief of Staff and the Judge Advocate General,
respondents. In relation to the celebrated Oakwood
mutiny where a total of 321 soldiers including petitioners
herein declared their withdrawal of support to the
Commander-in-chief, President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo declared a state of rebellion and ordered the
arrest of the said soldiers.
Issue:
Whether the court martial may assume jurisdiction over
those who have been criminally charged of coup d’état
before the regular courts.
Held:
Yes. Article 96 of the Articles of War is service-
connected. This is expressly provided in Section 1
(second paragraph) of R.A. No. 7055. It bears stressing
that the charge against the petitioners concerns the
alleged violation of their solemn oath as officers to
defend the Constitution and the duly-constituted
authorities.
G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989
JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE IGNACIO ALMODOVAR, respondent.
PARAS, J.
Facts:
Presented before Us is a special civil action
for certiorari against the Honorable Judge Ignacio
Almodovar of the City Court of Legaspi, Branch 1,
Legaspi City, raising beautiful questions of law which We
are tasked to resolve. Petitioner John Philip Guevarra,
then 11 years old, was playing with his best friend
Teodoro Almine, Jr. and three other children in their
backyard in the morning of 29 October 1984. They were
target-shooting a bottle cap (tansan) placed around
fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters away with an air rifle
borrowed from a neighbor. In the course of their game,
Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which
caused his unfortunate death.
Issue:
Whether the court had jurisdiction over the case
notwithstanding the fact that it did not pass thru the
barangay lupon
Held:
Yes. We therefore rule that, in construing Section 2(3) of
P.D. 1508, the penalty which the law defining the offense
attaches to the latter should be considered. Hence, any
circumstance which may affect criminal liability must not
be considered.
G.R. No. 154473 April 24, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and PHOTOKINA
MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs.
ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 155573 April 24, 2009
PHOTOKINA MARKETING
CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, Respondent.
NACHURA, J.:
Facts:
G.R. No. 154473
1
On January 31, 2002, respondent Alfredo L. Benipayo,
then Chairman of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), delivered a speech in the "Forum on
Electoral Problems: Roots and Responses in the
Philippines" held at the Balay Kalinaw, University of the
Philippines-Diliman Campus, Quezon City. The speech
was subsequently published in the February 4 and 5,
2002 issues of the Manila Bulletin.
G.R. No. 155573
On March 13, 2002, respondent, as COMELEC Chair,
and COMELEC Commissioner Luzviminda Tangcangco
were guests of the talk show "Point Blank," hosted by
Ces Drilon and televised nationwide on the ANC-23
channel. The television show’s episode that day was
entitled "COMELEC Wars."
Issue:
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime of libel
filed against Benipayo.
Held:
YES. The jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a
case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the
institution of the action, unless a latter statute provides
for a retroactive application thereof. Article 360 of the
RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, is explicit
on which court has jurisdiction to try cases of written
defamations in providing that the criminal and civil action
for damages in cases of written defamations as provided
for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or
separately with the court of first instance [now, the
Regional Trial Court] of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first published or where any
of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.
G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. EMETERIO C. OCAYA, as District Judge, 15th
Judicial District, Branch VI, Province of Bukidnon,
and ESTERLINA MARAPAO, LETICIA MARAPAO and
DIOSDADO MARAPAO, respondents.
TEEHANKEE, J.:
Facts:
The Court declares the questioned orders of respondent
judge dismissing the information for supposed lack of
jurisdiction as null and void. Respondent judge
wrongfully dismissed the case before him in disregard to
the elemental rule that jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations of the information and that the offense of
serious physical injuries charged in the information had
duly vested his court with jurisdiction. The Court orders
the transfer of the case below to another branch of the
Bukidnon court of-first instance, since it is doubtful that
the State and offended party may expect a fair and
impartial hearing and determination of the case from
respondent judge who with his erroneous pre-
conceptions and predilections has adversely prejudged
their case for serious physical injuries as one merely of
slight or less serious physical injuries.
Issue:
Whether Hon. Ocaya acted with grave abuse of
discretion for dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Held:
The orders of the respondent judge was held NULL &
VOID.
The jurisdiction of the court in a criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the information or
criminal complaint, and not by the result of the evidence
presented at the trial, nor the trial judge’s personal
appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits without hearing
the parties and their witnesses. Moreover, once
jurisdiction has attached to the person and subject-
matter, the subsequent happening of events, though it
may have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance, will not divest the court of jurisdiction
already attached.
G.R. Nos. 160054-55 July 21, 2004
MANOLO P. SAMSON, petitioner,
vs.
HON. REYNALDO B. DAWAY, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 90, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
CATERPILLAR, INC., respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Facts:
The undisputed facts show that on March 7, 2002, two
informations for unfair competition under Section 168.3
(a), in relation to Section 170, of the Intellectual Property
Code (Republic Act No. 8293), similarly worded save for
the dates and places of commission, were filed against
2
petitioner Manolo P. Samson, the registered owner of Held:
ITTI Shoes.
In the instant case, there is no showing that the alleged
Issue: falsification was committed by the accused, if at all, as
Which court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases a consequence of, and while they were discharging,
for violation of intellectual property rights? official functions. The information does not allege that
there was an intimate connection between
Held: the discharge of official duties and the commission of the
The SC held that under Section 163 of the IPC, actions offense.
for unfair competition shall be brought before the proper
courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws. G.R. Nos. 161784-86. April 26, 2005
The law contemplatedin Section 163 of IPC is RA 166
otherwise known as the Trademark Law. Section 27 of DINAH C. BARRIGA, Petitioners,
theTrademark Law provides that jurisdiction over cases vs.
for infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (4TH DIVISION)
false designation of origin and false description or and THE PEOPLE OF THE
representation, is lodged with theCourt of First Instance PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
(now Regional Trial Court). Since RA 7691 is a general
law and IPC inrelation to Trademark Law is a special CALLEJO, SR., J.:
law, the latter shall prevail. Actions for unfair
competitiontherefore should be filed with the RTC. Facts:

G.R. No. 154886. July 28, 2005 On April 3, 2003, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a
motion with the Sandiganbayan for the admission of the
LUDWIG H. ADAZA, Petitioners, three Amended Informations appended thereto. The first
vs. Amended Information docketed as Criminal Case No.
SANDIGANBAYAN (the First DIVISION composed of 27435, charged petitioner Dinah C. Barriga and Virginio
Justices GREGORIO S. ONG, CATALINO R. E. Villamor, the Municipal Accountant and the Municipal
CASTANEDA, JR. and FRANCISCO H. VILLARUZ, Mayor, respectively, of Carmen, Cebu, with malversation
JR. and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES of funds.
represented by SPECIAL PROSECUTION
OFFICE, Respondents. Issue:

CARPIO-MORALES, J.: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the

crimes committed
Facts:
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) of Held:
1st District of Zamboanga del Norte awarded to Parents
and Teachers Association (PTA)of Manawan National Yes. Based on the allegations in the Amended
High School (MNHS) a contract for the construction of a Informations and RA 8249, the Sandiganbayan has
school building at an agreed consideration of original jurisdiction over the crimes of Malversation and
P111,319.50. Upon the completion of the project, PTA Illegal Use of Public Funds. RA 8249 -SB has orig
failed to receive the last installment payment amounting jurisdiction over crimes and felonies committed by public
to P20,847.17. PTA president Felix Mejorda (Mejorda) officers and employees, at least one of whom belongs to
was informed by Hazel Peñaranda, DPWH Cashier, that any of the five categories thereunder enumerated at the
the check for P20,847.17 had been released to Ludwig time of the commission of such crimes.
H. Adaza (Adaza).
G.R. No. 175750-51 April 2, 2014
Issue:
SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA, Petitioner,
Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the vs.
falsification case against Adaza which was not in relation PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HON.
to his position as municipal mayor
3
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), and Crisostomo pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. The
EMERLINA MOLETA,Respondents. presentation of evidence for

PEREZ, J.: Crisostomo’s defense was deemed waived for his failure
to appear at the scheduled hearings despite notice.
Facts: Crisostomo and 1 co-accused were found guilty by the
Sandiganbayan, while the others were still at large.
For review on certiorari is the Decision1 of the Honorable
Sandiganbayan dated 12 December 2006, finding Issue:
Silverina E. Consigna (petitioner) guilty for violation of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise Whether the sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and crime of murder charged against crisostomo who is a
Estafa, as defined and penalized under Article 315 (2)(a) senior police officer 1 (spo1) at the time of the filing of
of the Revised Penal Code. Consigna, then Property the information against him
Clerk of the Division Superintendent of Schools for the
province of Surigao del Norte, and Prospero E. Borja, Held:
warehouseman of the NAMARCO, were charged with
the crime of malversation. The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to try the case.
However, the prosecution failed to prove Crisostomo and
Issue: Calingayan’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we
acquit Crisostomo and Calingayan.
Whether or not the trial court, besides acquitting
Consigna had the authority to order his reinstatement Based on the foregoing findings, as well as on
the Deloso v. Domingo ruling and the Court’s
Held: instructions in Republic v. Asuncion, the
Sandiganbayan had every reason to assume jurisdiction
Yes. The ruling that upon acquitting one charged with over this case. Crisostomo waited until the very last
malversation of public funds, the court has no authority stage of this case, the rendition of the verdict, before he
to order payment of his salaries corresponding to the questioned the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Crisostomo
period of his suspension because his right to the same is already estopped from questioning the
was not involved in the case - does not apply to Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
defendant's right in case of acquittal to reinstatement to
the position he was occupying at the time of his G.R. No. 191894 July 15, 2015
suspension, because, as we have said heretofore, this
matter would seem to be involved in the case of DANILO A. DUNCANO, Petitioner,
malversation albeit as a mere incident because vs.
conviction of the offense charged results necessarily in a HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (2nd DIVISION), and HON.
denial of such right to reinstatement in view of the OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
penalty of disqualification provided by law. PROSECUTOR, Respondents.

G.R. No. 152398. April 14, 2005 PERALTA, J.:

EDGAR CRISOSTOMO, Petitioners, Facts:

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent. Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano is, at the time material to
the case, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal
CARPIO, J.: Revenue (BIR) with Salary Grade 26 as classified under
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758.3 On March 24, 2009, the
Facts: Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Office of the
Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against him for
Crisostomo, a member of the Philippine National Police, violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of R.A.
and others were charged with the murder of Renato, a No. 6713.
detention prisoner at the Solano Municipal Jail.
4
Issue:
WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
Held:
The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of
Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, 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
(Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office. In
ruling in favor of its jurisdiction, even though petitioner
admittedly occupied the position of Director II with Salary
Grade "26" under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), the
Sandiganbayan incurred in serious error of jurisdiction,
and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in suspending petitioner from office,
entitling petitioner to the reliefs prayed for.
G.R. No. 165835 June 22, 2005
MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, Petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and the OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.
Tinga, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia was the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, J6, of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines. Petitioner filed
this Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65
to annul and set aside public respondent
Sandiganbayan’s Resolution dated 29 October 2004
and Writ of Preliminary Attachment dated 2 November
2004, and to enjoin public respondents Sandiganbayan
and Office of the Ombudsman from further proceeding
with any action relating to the enforcement of the
assailed issuances.
Issue:
WON SB has jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture
under RA 1379
Held:
On the foregoing premises alone, the Court in Republic
v. Sandiganbayan, deduced that jurisdiction over
violations of R.A. No. 3019 and 1379 is lodged with the
Sandiganbayan. It could not have taken into
consideration R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249 since
both statutes which also amended the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan were not yet enacted at the time. The
subsequent enactments only serve to buttress the
conclusion that the Sandiganbayan indeed has
jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379.
G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999
PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA
PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
ROMEO M. ACOP AND FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA,
JR., petitioner-intervenors.
MARTINEZ, J.:
Facts:
The constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of Republic Act
No. 8249 — an act which further defines the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan — is being challenged in this
petition for prohibition and mandamus. Petitioner Panfilo
Lacson, joined by petitioners-intervenors Romeo Acop
and Francisco Zubia, Jr., also seeks to prevent the
Sandiganbayan from proceedings with the trial of
Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 (for multiple murder)
against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate the
petitioners’ right to due process and the equal protection
clause of the Constitution as the provisions seemed to
have been introduced for the Sandiganbayan to continue
to acquire jurisdiction over the Kuratong Baleleng case.
Held:
In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is said
to have been committed in relation to the office if it is
5
intimately connected with the office of the offender and
perpetrated while he was in the performance of his
official functions. Such intimate relation must be alleged
in the information which is essential in determining the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. However,
upon examination of the amended information, there
was no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of
the victim by the said principal accused was intimately
related to the discharge of their official duties as police
officers. Likewise, the amended information does not
indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated
the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody.
The stringent requirement that the charge set forth with
such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact
offense which the accused is alleged to have committed
in relation to his office was not established.
G.R. No. 189434 March 12, 2014
FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the
Presidential Commission on Good
Government,Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 189505
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
SERENO, C.J.:
Facts:
On 25 April 2012, the Supreme Court rendered a
Decision affirming the 2 April 2009 Decision of the
Sandiganbayan and declaring all the assets of Arelma,
S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos,
forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. The
anti-graft court found that the totality of assets and
properties acquired by the Marcos spouses was
manifestly and grossly disproportionate to their
aggregate salaries as public officials, and that petitioners
were unable to overturn the prima facie presumption of
ill-gotten wealth, pursuant to Section 2 of Republic Act
No. (RA) 1379.Petitioners seek reconsideration of the
denial of their petition, raising the issues below.
Issue:
WoN the Sandiganbayan must first acquire territorial
jurisdiction over the Arelma proceeds before the
judgment may be enforced
Held:
NO. The execution of a Court’s judgment is merely a
ministerial phase of adjudication. The authority of the
Sandiganbayan to rule on the character of these assets
as ill-gotten cannot be conflated with petitioner’s
concerns as to how the ruling may be effectively
enforced.
G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE GREGORIO MONTEJO, Judge, Court
of First Instance, Zamboanga City and Basilan City,
MAYOR LEROY S. BROWN, DETECTIVE JOAQUIN R.
POLLISCO, PATROLMAN GRACIANO
LACERNA alias DODONG, PATROLMAN MOHAMAD
HASBI, SPECIAL POLICEMAN DIONISIO DINGLASA,
SPECIAL POLICEMAN HADJARATIL, SPECIAL
POLICEMAN ALO, and JOHN DOES, respondents.
CONCEPCION, J.:
Facts:
Mayor Leroy Brown of Basilan City, Det. Joaquin
Pollisco, Patrolman Graciano Lacema, and other co-
accused where charged with murder. It was alleged in
the information filed against them that from May to June
1958, the Mayor and his "organized groups of police
patrol and civilian commandoes" whom he "armed with
pistols and high power guns" established a camp which
they called as their 'sub-police headquarters' at Tipo-
Tipo, Lamitan.
Issue:
Whether or not Mayor Brown is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his office.
Held:
Yes, Mayor Brown committed an offense in relation to
his office. A public officer commits an offense in relation
to his office if he perpetrates the offense while
performing his official functions and that he could not
have committed the offense without holding his public
office. Although the performance of the official function
was improper or is an irregular manner, it was alleged in
the information that Mayor Brown established the sub-
6
station and was under his “command,... supervision and NCR, Branch 70, Pasig), The Honorable FRANKLIN
control” and that his co-defendants were acting upon his DRILON (in his capacity as Secretary of Justice),
orders. Thus, in this case, there is an intimate JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, LEONARDO C. GUIYAB,
connection between the offense and the office of the CARLOS L. DE LEON, RAMONCITO C. MISON,
accused. REYNALDO J. LUGTU, and RODRIGO P. LORENZO,
the last six respondents in their official capacities as
G.R. No. 141710 March 3, 2004 members of the State Prosecutor's
Office), respondents.
EVELYN V. RODRIGUEZ, AND ANDRES ABONITA,
JR., petitioners, CRUZ, J.:
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, AND PEOPLE OF THE Facts:
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
There is probably no more notorious person in the
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: country today than Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez of
Calauan, Laguna, who stands accused of an
Facts: unspeakable crime. On him, the verdict has already
been rendered by many outraged persons who would
The January 17, 2000 three separate Orders of the immediately impose on him an angry sentence. Yet, for
Sandiganbayan denying petitioners’ motion to quash the all the prejudgments against him, he is under our
second amended information,1 denying the motion to Constitution presumed innocent as long as the contrary
defer arraignment,2 and entering a plea of "not guilty" for has not been proved. Like any other person accused of
petitioners in light of their refusal to plead to the an offense, he is entitled to the full and vigilant protection
information,3 are assailed in the present petition of the Bill of Rights.
for certiorari.
Issue:
Issue:

WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case
matter
Held:
Held:
The Ombudsman is indeed empowered under Section
Yes. In the present case, public office is not an essential
15, paragraph (1) of R.A. 6770 to investigate and
element of the offense of obstruction of justice under
prosecute, any illegal act or omission of any public
Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829. The circumstances
official. However, as we held only two years ago in the
surrounding the commission of the offense alleged to
case of Aguinaldo v. Domagas, this authority "is not an
have been committed by petitioner Rodriguez are such,
exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent
however, that the offense may not have been committed
authority in. respect of the offense charged."
had said petitioner not held the office of the mayor. As
found during the preliminary investigation, petitioner
Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior
Rodriguez, in the course of her duty as Mayor, who is
student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu. A
tasked to exercise general and operational control and
student of a state university is known as a government
supervision over the local police forces, used her
scholar. She was appointed by then President Joseph
influence, authority and office to call and command
Estrada on December 21, 1999 as a student regent of
members of the municipal police of Taytay to haul and
UP, to serve a one-year term starting January 1, 2000
transfer the lumber which was still subject of an
and ending on December 31, 2000. On July 3, 2003, the
investigation for violation of P.D. 705.
Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable
cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian D.
G.R. Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993
Serana for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27819
of the Sandiganbayan.
ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, petitioner,
vs.
Issue:
The Honorable HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU (in her
capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court,
7
WON a government scholar and UP student regent is a
public officer.
Held:
Yes. Public office is the right, authority, and duty created
and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either
fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating
power, an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise by
him for the benefit of the public. The individual so
invested is a public officer. (Laurel vs Desierto)
Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the
public office. An investment in an individual of some
portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to
be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes
one a public officer. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out,
the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board
of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express
mandate of law, petitioner is a public officer as
contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
G.R. No. 144261-62 May 9, 2001
PRUDENTE D. SOLLER, M.D., PRECIOSA M.
SOLLER, M.D., RODOLFO I. SALCEDO, JOSEFINA B.
MORADA, MARIO M. MATINING, and ROMMEL M.
LUARCA, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
Facts:
In the evening of March 14, 1997, Jerry Macabael a
municipal guard, was shot and killed along the national
highway at Bansud, Oriental Mindoro while driving a
motorcycle together with petitioner Soller's son, Vincent
M. Soller. His body was brought to a medical clinic
located in the house of petitioner Dr. Prudente Soller, the
Municipal Mayor, and his wife Dr. Preciosa Soller, who is
the Municipal Health Officer. The incident was reported
to and investigated by petitioner SPO4 Mario Matining.
An autopsy was conducted on the same night on the
cadaver of Jerry by petitioner Dr. Preciosa Soller with
the assistance of petitioner Rodolfo Salcedo, Sanitary
Inspector, and petitioner Josefina Morada, Rural Health
Midwife.
Issue:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case
Held:
For an offense to fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, the offense must have been
committed by the officials enunciated in
paragraph (a) “in relation to their office,” i.e. it
should be intimately connected with the office of
the offender, and should have been perpetrated while
the offender was in the performance of his official
functions. Moreover, these requisites must be alleged in
the information. In this case, there was no allegation that
the offense charged was done in the performance of
official function.
G.R. No. 169588 October 7, 2013
JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION
represented by its manager and authorized
representative Norma Tan, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA SR., Presiding
Judge of The Municipal Trial Court Branch 3, Baguio
City, BENEDICTO BALAJADIA, EDWIN ANG, "JOHN
DOES" and "PETER DOES" Respondents.
LEONEN, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a
private parking operator duly authorized to operate and
manage the parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to
City Ordinance 003-2000. It is also authorized under
Section 13 of the City Ordinance to render any motor
vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the
vehicle is illegally parked.
Issue:
Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the
City Prosecutor on May 23,2003 tolled the prescription
period of the commission of the offense
Held:
No. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the
prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved
in an ordinance. The respondent judge was correct when
he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes . In Zaldivia v.
Reyes , 211 SCRA 277 (1992), the violation of a
municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also featured
8
similar facts and issues with the present case. In that
case, the offense was committed on May 11, 1990. The
Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the
Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.
G.R. No. L-42925 January 31, 1977
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RICARDO D. GALANO, Presiding Judge, Court
of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII, and
GREGORIO SANTOS, respondents.
TEEHANKEE, J:
Facts:
The complaint filed with the Batangas court which
expressly alleged commission of the offense within the
municipality and which pended for twelve years (the
accused having jumped bail and evaded rearrest for nine
years) and which was eventually dismissed by said court
for lack of territorial jurisdiction as a result of the proof
adduced before it properly interrupted and tolled the
prescription period. Respondent judge failed, in ruling
otherwise, to apply the settled rule that the jurisdiction of
a court is determined in criminal cases by the allegations
of the complaint or information and not by the result of
proof. The case is ordered remanded for determination
with the utmost dispatch, since this case has already
been pending for fifteen years owing to respondent
accused's deplorable tactics.
Issue:
WON the crime has already prescribed and must be
dismissed
Held:
No. The crime has not yet prescribed. The offense was
committed on or about September 16, 1962 when
respondent failed to account for and instead
misappropriated to his own use the sum of P8,704.00
representing the net proceeds (minus his commission) of
272 booklets of sweepstakes tickets that had been
entrusted to him be the complainant, who promptly filed
on October 2, 1962 plainly within the ten-year
prescriptive period the criminal complaint against
respondent accused in the Municipal Court of Batangas,
Batangas. The prescriptive period was thereupon
interrupted.
G.R. No. 139930 June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, MARIA CLARA LOBREGAT, JOSE
ELEAZAR, JR., JOSE CONCEPCION, ROLANDO P.
DELA CUESTA, EMMANUEL M. ALMEDA,
HERMENEGILDO C. ZAYCO, NARCISO M. PINEDA,
IÑAKI R. MENDEZONA, DANILO S. URSUA,
TEODORO D. REGALA, VICTOR P. LAZATIN,
ELEAZAR B. REYES, EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, LEO
J. PALMA, DOUGLAS LU YM, SIGFREDO VELOSO
and JAIME GANDIAGA, Respondents.
ABAD, J.:
Facts:
On March 1, 1990 the Office of the Solicitor General filed
acomplaint for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
(R.A.) 3019 against respondents, the 1979 members of
the UCPB board of directors, before the PCGG.Nine
years later, the Office of the Special Prosecutor issued a
memorandum that the action has already prescribed.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents alleged violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. 3019 already prescribed.
Held:
R.A. 3019 being a special law, the 10-year prescriptive
period should be computed in accordance with Section 2
of Act 3326which states that “prescription shall begin to
run from the day of the commission of the violation of the
law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the
discovery thereof xxx”
G.R. No. 168662 February 19, 2008
SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED, petitioner,
vs.
EDGAR C. LIM, doing business as ORIGNAMURA
TRADING, respondent.
CORONA, J.:
Facts:
Sometime in 2001, due to the deluge of counterfeit
Sanrio products, GGI asked IP Manila Associates
(IPMA) to conduct a market research. The research's
objective was to identify those factories, department
stores and retail outlets manufacturing and/or selling
fake Sanrio items. After conducting several test-buys in
9
various commercial areas, IPMA confirmed that
respondent's Orignamura Trading in Tutuban Center,
Manila was selling imitations of petitioner's products.
Issue:
WON the action had already prescribed
Held:
NO. Section 2 of Act 3326 provides that the prescriptive
period for violation of special laws starts on the day such
offense was committed and is interrupted by the
institution of proceedings against respondent (i.e., the
accused). Petitioner in this instance filed its complaint-
affidavit 1 year, 10 months and 4 days after the NBI
searched respondent’s premises and seized Sanrio
merchandise therefrom.
G.R. No. 197291 April 3, 2013
DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR., Petitioner,
vs.
SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of the
Department of Justice, CSP CLARO ARELLANO, as
Chief State Prosecutor, National Prosecution
Service, and PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE
MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE, headed by RSP PETER
MEDALLE, Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
Facts:
History will never forget the atrocities perpetrated on
November 23, 2009, when 57 innocent civilians were
massacred in Sitio Masalay, Municipality of Ampatuan,
Maguindanao Province. Among the principal suspects
was petitioner, then the Mayor of the Municipality of Datu
Unsay, Maguindanao Province. Inquest proceedings
were conducted against petitioner on November 26,
2009 at the General Santos (Tambler) Airport Lounge,
before he was flown to Manila and detained at the main
office of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The
NBI and the Philippine National Police (PNP) charged
other suspects, numbering more than a hundred, for
what became aptly known as the Maguindanao
massacre.
Issue:
Whether respondents may be compelled by writ of
mandamus to charge Dalandag as an accused for
multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao
massacre despite his admission to the Witness
Protection Program of the DOJ.
Held:
No. The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive
Department of the Government whose principal power
and responsibility are to see to it that our laws are
faithfully executed. A necessary component of the power
to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their
violators. The right to prosecute vests the public
prosecutors with a wide range of discretion – the
discretion of what and whom to charge, the exercise of
which depends on a smorgasbord of factors that are
best appreciated by the public prosecutors.
G.R. No. 191567 March 20, 2013
MARIE CALLO-CLARIDAD, Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIP RONALD P. ESTEBAN and TEODORA ALYN
ESTEBAN, Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
Facts:
The petitioner is the mother of the late Cheasare Armani
"Chase" Callo Claridad, whose lifeless but bloodied body
was discovered in the evening of February 27, 2007
between vehicles parked at the carport of a residential
house located at No.10 Cedar Place, Ferndale Homes,
Quezon City. Allegedly, Chase had been last seen alive
with respondent Philip Ronald P. Esteban (Philip) less
than an hour before the discovery of his lifeless body.
Issue:
WON the circumstantial evidence presented was
sufficient to warrant the indictment of the respondents for
murder?
Held:
NO. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to
support a conviction, all the circumstances must be
consistent with one another and must constitute an
unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that a crime has been committed and that the
respondents are probably guilty thereof. The pieces of
evidence must be consistent with the hypothesis that the
respondents were probably guilty of the crime and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that they
were innocent, and with every rational hypothesis except
10
that of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient,
therefore, if: (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b)
the facts from which the inferences are derived have
been proven, and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
G.R. No. L-53373 June 30, 1987
MARIO FL. CRESPO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGUL, Presiding Judge,
CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, 9th
Judicial Dist., THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, RICARDO
BAUTISTA, ET AL., respondents.
GANCAYCO, J.:
Facts:
On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala
with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an
information for estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in the
Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City which was
docketed as Criminal Case No. CCCIX-52 (Quezon)
'77.1 When the case was set for arraigment the accused
filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that
there was a pending petition for review filed with the
Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. In an
order of August 1, 1977, the presiding judge, His Honor,
Leodegario L. Mogul, denied the motion. 2 A motion for
reconsideration of the order was denied in the order of
August 5, 1977 but the arraignment was deferred to
August 18, 1977 to afford time for petitioner to elevate
the matter to the appellate court.
Issue:
Whether the trial court, acting on a motion to dismiss a
criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom the case
was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion
and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits?
Held:
YES.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or
information is filed in Court any disposition of the case
as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court.
Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the
prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is
already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the
trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what
to do with the case before it. The determination of the
case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence.
G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG,
HON. SAMUEL R. MARTIRES, AND HON. ALEX L.
QUIROZ OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
BRION, J.:
Facts:
We resolve the “petition for certiorari with prayers (a) for
the Court En Banc to act on the petition; (b) to expedite
the proceedings and to set the case for oral arguments;
and (c) to issue a temporary restraining order to the
respondents from holding a pre-trial and further
proceedings in Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-
0238”1 filed by petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile (Enrile)
challenging the July 11, 2014 resolutions 2 of the
Sandiganbayan. The Office of the Ombudsman filed an
Information for plunder against Enrile, Jessica Lucila
Reyes, Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John
Raymund de Asis before the Sandiganbayan.
Issue:
Is a Motion to Quash the proper remedy if the
information is vague or indefinite resulting in the serious
violation of Enrile’s constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him?
Held:
NO. When allegations in an Information are vague or
indefinite, the remedy of the accused is not a motion to
quash, but a motion for a bill of particulars. The purpose
of a bill of particulars is to supply vague facts or
allegations in the complaint or information to enable the
accused to properly plead and prepare for trial. It
presupposes a valid Information, one that presents all
the elements of the crime charged, albeit under vague
terms. Notably, the specifications that a bill of particulars
may supply are only formal amendments to the
complaint or Information. Thus, if the Information is
lacking, a court should take a liberal attitude towards its
granting and order the government to file a bill of
particulars elaborating on the charges. Doubts should be
resolved in favor of granting the bill to give full meaning
to the accused’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
11
G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking
official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining
and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder),1 as amended by
RA 7659,2 wishes to impress upon us that the assailed
law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin
but distinct line which divides the valid from the
constitutionally infirm. He therefore makes a stringent
call for this Court to subject the Plunder Law to the
crucible of constitutionality mainly because, according to
him, (a) it suffers from the vice of vagueness; (b) it
dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in
criminal prosecutions; and, (c) it abolishes the element
of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The
Revised Penal Code, all of which are purportedly clear
violations of the fundamental rights of the accused to
due process and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him.
Issue:
Whether petitioner Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada may be tried
for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly
involved in one act or offense that is illegal gambling and
not in a "series or combination of overt or criminal acts"
as required in R.A. No. 7080
Held:
pursuant to items (1) to (6) of R.A. No. 7080, and state
the names of the accused who committed each act.
G.R. No. 151785 December 10, 2007
SUSAN FRONDA-BAGGAO, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Facts:
Sometime in 1989, the Provincial Prosecutor of Abra
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Bangued,
same province, four separate Informations for illegal
recruitment against Susan Fronda-Baggao, petitioner,
and Lawrence Lee, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos.
744, 745, 746 and 749
Issue:
Whether the four Informations for illegal recruitment
could be amended and lumped into one Information for
illegal recruitment in large scale.
Held:
Yes. A careful scrutiny of the above Rule shows that
although it uses the singular word complaint or
information, it does not mean that two or more
complaints or Informations cannot be amended into only
one Information. Surely, such could not have been
intended by this Court. Otherwise, there can be an
absurd situation whereby two or more complaints or
Informations could no longer be amended into one or
more Informations.

YES. Petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7080 is

unconstitutional as applied to him is principally perched
on the premise that the Amended Information charged
him with only one act or one offense which cannot
constitute plunder.
Petitioner’s premise is patently false. A careful
examination of the Amended Information will show that it
is divided into three (3) parts: (1) the first paragraph
charges former President Joseph E. Estrada with the
crime of plunder together with petitioner Jose “Jinggoy”
Estrada, Charlie “Atong” Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda
Ricaforte and others; (2) the second paragraph spells
out in general terms how the accused conspired in
committing the crime of plunder; and (3) the following
four sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the
predicate acts constitutive of the crime of plunder

12