CASE 1: [G.R. No. 122641.

January 20, 1997]

BAYANI SUBIDO, JR. and RENE PARINA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGAN-BAYAN
and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

TYPE OF ACTION: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

FACTS:

In an information filed on July 28, 1995 petitioners Subido and Parina were charged with Arbitrary
Detention. It was alleged that Subido being then a Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) and Parina (BID Special Agent) conspired and while in the performance of their official
function caused the issuance and implementation of a warrant of arrest against James J. Maksimuk
despite knowledge of a pending Motion for Reconsideration relative to a BID Decision for deportation that
has yet to be final.

On August 28, 1995 petitioners filed a Motion to Quash contending that RA 7975 effective May 6,
1995 amended PD 1606 making the offense charged and the persons of the accused outside of
Sandigan-bayan’s jurisdiction. Petitioners argued that Subido was already a private person and Parina’s
salary was below salary grade 27 at the time the case was filed.

The prosecution filed its Opposition to the Motion to Quash contending that the basis of
jurisdiction was the position of the accused when the offense charged was committed pursuant to RA
7975 4(b). The petitioners then filed a Supplement to the Motion to Quash asserting that Subido was
separated from service before the effectivity of RA 7975, hence retroactive application thereof would be
prejudicial to him. The prosecution maintained their stance in its Rejoinder and later denied the
petitioners’ Motion to Squash and the Supplement thereto. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
that was denied hence, this special civil action.

ISSUE:

WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.

HELD:

Yes.

Section 4 of PD 1606 as amended by RA 7975, plainly states that the accused official with salary
grade 27 or higher must be occupying the position at the time of the commission of the crime not at
the time of the filing of the case as the petitioners contend.

In Aguinaldo v Domagas it was ruled that for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive original
jurisdiction it was necessary that the offenses or felonies committed by public officers or employees were
in relation to their office. The information in the criminal case charged petitioners with arbitrary detention
which was committed while in the performance of their official functions. The prescribed penalty is prision
mayor, indisputably, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged.