SUBIDO vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN

Bayani Subido Jr. and Rene Parina, petitioners vs. Sandiganbayan, respondent
(G.R. No. 122641, 20 | January 1997)

The reckoning point for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over the accused and the
offense charged is the time of the commission of the crime. The information filed in
Criminal

A procedural and curative statute may validly be given retroactive effect, there being no
impairment of contractual or vested rights.

FACTS: Petitioners Subido and Parina were charged with Arbitrary Detention (penalized under
Revised Penal Code) in an information filed on 28 July 1995. The case was docketed as Criminal
Case 22825. The information alleged that then Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation
Bayani Subido Jr. and then BID Special Agent Rene Parina willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
caused the issuance and implementation of an arrest warrant dated 25 June 1992 against James
J. Maksimuk, in conspiracy with each other and while performing their official functions. The said
warrant caused Maksimuk’s detention for forty-three (43) days.

The petitioners then filed on 28 August 1995 a Motion to Quash, where they alleged that the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over their person and the offense charged and they should be
tried in RTC of Manila, as Arbitary Detention (penalized under the Revised Penal Code) is not
covered under R.A. No. 7975. Also, they argued that R.A. 7975 should be given prospective
application because when the case was filed, Subido was already a private person since he
separated from government service on 28 February 1995 while Parina did not hold a position
corresponding to Salary Grade 27.

The prosecution filed their opposition to the Motion to Quash on 28 September 1995, contending
that under Sec. 4(b) of R.A. 7975, the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the petitioners and
the offense charged and that the basis of Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is “the position of the
accused in the government service when the offense charged was committed and not the nature
of the offense charged, provided the offense committed by the accused was in the exercise of his
duties and in relation to his office.”

The petitioners’ Motion to Quash was denied by the Sandiganbayan (in its Resolution dated 25
October 1995). The Sandiganbayan ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case, as stated in Sec.
4 (a)e of R.A. 7975.

As the arraignment was 10 November 1995, the petitioners filed on 9 November 1995 Motion
for Reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan that motion through its Order dated 10 November
1995. Hence, this petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUES: W/N the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the petitioners and the offense of
Arbitrary Detention charged against them?

HELD: The petition of Subido and Parina was DISMISSED by the Supreme Court. Ruling – The
Court ruled that as per Sections 2 and 7 of Rep. Act 7975, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over the offense, as the information in Criminal Case 22825 stated that the petitioners “willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously caused the issuance and implementation of an arrest warrant dated 25
June 1992 against James J. Maksimuk, in conspiracy with each other and while performing their
official functions.” Moreover, the penalty for the Arbitrary Detention due to Maksimuk’s detention
of forty-three (43) days is prision mayor (6 years 1 day – 12 years), and under E.O. 184, the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over such offense. It also stated that the petitioners overlooked
that the reckoning point for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over them and the offense
charged is the time of the commission of the crime. Moreover, Subido never denied in the lower
court that at time when he committed the offense, he was classified under Salary Grade 27 for
the position of Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation. Contrary to the petitioner’s
argument, the Court also ruled that the Sandiganbayan Law (PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975)
is not a penal law which defines crimes and provide punishment for such acts, but a procedural
law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their
invasion. Thus, as a procedural and curative statute, R.A. No. 7975 may validly be given
retroactive effect, there being no impairment of contractual or vested rights