PCCG VS DUMAYAS – TOPIC- SANDIGANBAYAN

Remedial Law; Verification; The purpose of requiring a verification is to

secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition are true and correct,
not merely speculative.—It has been consistently held that the
verification of a pleading is only a formal, not a jurisdictional,
requirement. The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the petition are true and correct, not merely
speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of
pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render the
pleading fatally defective.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the

Constitution or by law and is determined by the allegations of the
complaint and the relief prayed for, regardless of whether the
plaintiff is entitled to recovery upon all or some of the claims prayed
for therein. Jurisdiction is not acquired by agreement or consent of the
parties, and neither does it depend upon the defenses raised in the answer or
in a motion to dismiss.

Same; Same; Same; Sandiganbayan; Under Section 4(C) of Presidential

Decree (PD) No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7975 and RA No.
8249, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan included suits for recovery of ill-
gotten wealth and related cases.—Under Section 4(C) of P.D. No. 1606, as
amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249, the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan included suits for recovery of ill-gotten wealth
and related cases: (C) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
x x x x The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
petitions for the issuance of the writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other
ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over
petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise
in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions
shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

ESCOBAL VS GARTICHONERA TOPIC SANDIGANBAYAN

Same; Same; Same; Sandiganbayan; Public Officers; For the Sandiganbayan to

have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by
P.D. No. 1861 over crimes committed by public officers in relation to their
office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate relation between the
office and the offender and the discharge of official duties must be alleged
in the Information—it is not enough to merely allege in the Information that the
crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office because that
would be a conclusion of law.—However, for the Sandiganbayan to have
exclusive jurisdiction under the said law over crimes committed by public officers
in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate
relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of official
duties must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to merely allege in
the Information that the crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to
his office because that would be a conclusion of law. The amended Information filed
with the RTC against the petitioner does not contain any allegation showing the
intimate relation between his office and the discharge of his duties. Hence, the RTC
had jurisdiction over the offense charged when on November 24, 1995, it ordered the
re-amendment of the Information to include therein an allegation that the petitioner
committed the crime in relation to office. The trial court erred when it ordered the
elevation of the records to the Sandiganbayan. It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975
amending P.D. No. 1606 was already in effect.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Under R.A. 7975, even if the offender
committed the crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a position
corresponding to a salary grade below “27”, the proper Regional Trial Court or
Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the
case.—Under the law, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation
to his office but occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade below “27,” the
proper Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the petitioner was a Police Senior
Inspector, with salary grade “23.” He was charged with homicide punishable by
reclusion temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime
charged conformably to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended
by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691.

HANNAH SERANA VS SANDIGANBAYAN TOPIC-JURISDICTION SANDIGANBAYAN

Same; Same; Same; Public Office; University of the Philippines (U.P.); Words and
Phrases; A University of the Philippines (UP) Student Regent is a public
officer; A 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.—Petitioner also
contends that she is not a public officer. She does not receive any salary or
remuneration as a UP student regent. This is not the first or likely the last time that
We will be called upon to define a public officer. In Khan, Jr. v. Office of the
Ombudsman, 495 SCRA 452 (2006), We ruled that it is difficult to pin down the
definition of a public officer. The 1987 Constitution does not define who are public
officers. Rather, the varied definitions and concepts are found in different statutes
and jurisprudence. In Aparri v. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231 (1984), the Court
held that: A 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
([Mechem Public Offices and Officers,] Sec. 1). The right to hold a public office under
our political system is therefore not a natural right. It exists, when it exists at all
only because and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating and
conferring it (Mechem Ibid., Sec. 64). There is no such thing as a vested interest or
an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting
constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and
tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary (42 Am.
Jur. 881).

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It is not only the salary grade that
determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan—the Sandiganbayan also has
jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606.—Petitioner claims that
she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee-
paying student. This is likewise bereft of merit. It is not only the salary grade
that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan
also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606. In Geduspan v.
People, 451 SCRA 187 (2005), We held that while the first part of Section 4(A) covers
only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically
includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and
higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the
said court. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is
placed there by express provision of law. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly
vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. 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,
indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.

Criminal Procedure; Jurisdictions; Pleadings and Practice; It is axiomatic that

jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information.—It is axiomatic
that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information. More
than that, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant
or respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion to quash. Otherwise,
jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of defendant
or respondent.

DUNCANO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Same; Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; Those that fall within the original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are: (1) officials of the executive branch with
Salary Grade 27 or higher, and (2) officials specifically enumerated in
Section 4(A)(1)(a) to (g), regardless of their salary grades.—Those that fall
within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are: (1) officials of the
executive branch with Salary Grade 27 or higher, and (2) officials specifically
enumerated in Section 4(A)(1)(a) to (g), regardless of their salary grades. While the
first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials of the executive branch with Salary
Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other executive officials
whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express
provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The legislative intent is to allow the Sandiganbayan
to devote its time and expertise to big-time cases involving the so-called “big fishes” in
the government rather than those accused who are of limited means who stand trial
for “petty crimes,” the so-called “small fry,” which, in turn, helps the court decongest
its dockets.—The legislative intent is to allow the Sandiganbayan to devote its time
and expertise to big-time cases involving the so-called “big fishes” in the government
rather than those accused who are of limited means who stand trial for “petty
crimes,” the so-called “small fry,” which, in turn, helps the court decongest its
dockets. Yet, those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided that they hold the positions
enumerated by the law. In this category, it is the position held, not the salary grade,
which determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The specific inclusion
constitutes an exception to the general qualification relating to “officials of the
executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989.”

DE LIMA VS GUERERO –SANDIGANBAYAN- no jurisdiction to Drug Related Cse

Same; Same; Regional Trial Courts; Jurisdiction; Drug-related Cases; A plain

reading of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, as of RA No. 6425, will reveal that
jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively vested with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) and no other.—Now the question that irresistibly demands an
answer is whether it is the Sandiganbayan or the RTC that has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of Criminal Case No. 17-165, i.e., violation of RA 9165. It is basic that
jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case is given only by law in the
manner and form prescribed by law. It is determined by the statute in force at the
time of the commencement of the action. Indeed, Congress has the plenary power to
define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. It follows then that
Congress may also, by law, provide that a certain class of cases should be exclusively
heard and determined by one court. Such would be a special law that is construed as
an exception to the general law on jurisdiction of courts. The pertinent special law
governing drug-related cases is RA 9165, which updated the rules provided in RA
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. A plain reading of RA
9165, as of RA 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is
exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; No other trial court was mentioned in Republic Act
(RA) No. 9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of drug-related cases. Thus,
in Morales v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 282 (1997), the Supreme Court (SC)
categorically named the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as the court with jurisdiction
over drug-related cases.—Notably, no other trial court was mentioned in RA
9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of drug-related cases. Thus,
in Morales v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 282 (1997), this Court categorically named
the RTC as the court with jurisdiction over drug-related cases, as follows: Applying
by analogy the ruling in People v. Simon, People v. De Lara, People v. Santos,
and Ordoñez v. Vinarao, the imposable penalty in this case which involves 0.4587
grams of shabu should not exceed prisión correccional. We say by analogy because
these cases involved marijuana, not methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). In
Section 20 of RA No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the maximum
quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride for purposes of
imposing the maximum penalties are not the same. For the latter, if the quantity
involved is 200 grams or more, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from P500,000 to P10 million shall be imposed. Accordingly, if the quantity
involved is below 200 grams, the imposable penalties should be as follows: x x x x
Clearly, the penalty which may be imposed for the offense charged in Criminal Case
No. 96-8443 would at most be only prisión correccional duration is from six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Does it follow then that, as the
petitioner insists, the RTC has no jurisdiction thereon in view of the
amendment of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 by R.A. No. 7691, which vested
upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of
the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties? This Section 32 as thus amended now reads: x x x x The exception in the
opening sentence is of special significance which we cannot disregard. x x x The
aforementioned exception refers not only to Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129 providing for
the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases, but also to other laws
which specifically lodge in Regional Trial Courts exclusive jurisdiction
over specific criminal cases, e.g., (a) Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by R.A Nos. 1289 and 4363 on written defamation or libel; (b) Decree on
Intellectual Property (P.D. No. 49, as amended), which vests upon Courts of First
Instance exclusive jurisdiction over the cases therein mentioned regardless of the
imposable penalty and (c) more appropriately for the case at bar, Section 39 of R.A.
No. 6425, as amended by P.D. No. 44, which vests on Courts of First Instance,
Circuit Criminal Courts, and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts
concurrent exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases involving violations of said
Act.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction to hear
drug-related cases. Even Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606, as
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 10660, touted by the petitioner and the dissents as
a catch-all provision, does not operate to strip the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) of its
exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA No. 9165.—It should occasion no
surprise, therefore, that the Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction to hear drug-
related cases. Even Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, touted by the
petitioner and the dissents as a catch-all provision, does not operate to strip the
RTCs of its exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165. As pointed out
by Justices Tijam and Martires, a perusal of the drugs law will reveal that public
officials were never considered excluded from its scope. Hence, Section 27 of RA 9165
punishes government officials found to have benefited from the trafficking of
dangerous drugs, while Section 28 of the law imposes the maximum penalty on such
government officials and employees.