CASE DOCTRINES ON CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE (Rules 110 to 127)

PEOPLE vs. HENRY T. GO

G.R. No. 168539               March 25, 2014

1) Once it is shown by probable cause after PI that a private person and a public officer
have conspired to commit a crime (e. g. violation of R. A, No. 3019) the private person may be
properly charged, tried and convicted in the Sandiganbayan even if the public officer is not charged
with him by reason of his death or some other reason.

Although the public officer has died and could no longer be charged with the private
person, it does not mean that the allegation of conspiracy between them could no longer be proved
or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of
the public officer is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove
the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private person.

The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of
R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy
with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be
indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no
longer be charged in court, as when the public officer dies before he could be charged, the private
person may be indicted alone.

2) By posting bail and filing a motion for consolidation of the cases against him, an accused
is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The rule is well settled that the
act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief from the court is
tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.

LACSON vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999

1) For the SB to assume jurisdiction over the case, it is not enough that it be alleged in the
Information that the accused public officer “committed the crime in relation to his office”. The
Information must contain specific allegation of facts showing that the crime is “intimately
connected” with the office of the accused such as (1) that he committed the crime while in the
performance of his official functions; (2) that he had no personal motives and would not have
committed crime if not for his office; (3) that he used the powers of his office to commit the crime
or (4) that he could not have committed the crime if not for his office.

2) The use of the phrase in the Information “the accused committed the crime in relation to
his public office”, which is a mere conclusion of law, is not what determines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would
indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused's official duties and the
commission of the offense charged. Thus, even if the phrase does not appear in the Information, the
SB may exercise jurisdiction if there are specific factual allegations showing close intimacy
between the discharge of the accused's official duties and the commission of the crime charged.