TITLE: ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA, Petitioner,vs.

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES Respondent. G.R. No. 149995
DATE: September 28,2007
PONENTE: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
HEADING: FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (Jurisdiction over the subject
Matter.

APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent.

APPELLANT: Isidro Pablito M. Palana

FACTS:
That on or around September 1987, in the Philippine city of Makati, Metro Manila, a location
under the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforementioned accused made or issued
to Alex B. a document deliberately, unlawfully, and knowingly. Carlos to apply on account or
for the value the check described below:
Check No. 326317PR
Drawn Against Asian Savings Bank Paseo de Roxas Branch.In the amount of P590,000.00.
Postdated February 15, 1988
Payable to Dr. Alex B. Carlos claimed that the accused was then presented for payment
within (90) days of the date of the check, despite knowing at the time of issue that he did not
have adequate money in or credit with the drawee bank to pay the face amount of the check
in full. Dishonored by the drawee bank for being drawn against insufficient funds, and
despite receiving notice of this dishonor, the accused failed to pay the payee the entire
amount of the check within five banking days after being notified of it or make arrangements
for full payment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED:
On August 19, 1991, petitioner was charged with violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in an Information
which reads as follows:
That on or about September 1987, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines,
a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did, then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue to Alex B. Carlos to
apply on account or for the value the check described below:

Check No. : 326317PR

Asian Savings Bank

Drawn Against :
Paseo de Roxas Branch

In the amount of : ₱590,000.00

Postdated : February 15, 1988

Payable to : Dr. Alex B. Carlos

NATURE OF THE CASE:

For review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21879 dated
September 17, 2001,1 affirming the September 23, 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City, Branch 63, in Criminal Case No. 91-5617 convicting petitioner Isidro
Pablito Palana with violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 otherwise known as the
"Bouncing Checks Law".

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
 Whether the Regional Trial Petitioner's argument that it is There is no merit in
Court has jurisdiction over the Metropolitan Trial Court petitioner’s allegation that
the case. and not the Regional Trial private complainant knew
YES, Court which has jurisdiction that the check is not
The subsequent over the case pursuant to R.A. funded. Both the trial
amendment of B.P. 129 by 7691 is without merit. court and the Court of
R.A. No. 7691, "An Act Appeals found that the
Expanding the Jurisdiction subject check was issued
of the Municipal Trial as guaranty for payment
Courts, Municipal Circuit of the loan hence, was
Trial Courts and the intended to apply for
Metropolitan Trial Court" on account or for value.
June 15, 1994 cannot
divest the Regional Trial
Court ofcjurisdiction over
petitioner's case.

HELD/RATIO:

It is hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction to try a criminal action is determined

by the law in force at thetime of the institution of the action15 and not
during the arraignment of the accused.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR

No. 21879 dated September 17, 2001, finding petitioner ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA
guilty of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is
ordered to pay private complainant the amount of ₱590,000.00, representing the value of
the check, with six (6%) percent interest from date of filing of the Information until the finality
of the decision, the amount of which, inclusive of the interest, is subject to twelve percent
(12%) interest, from finality of the decision until fully paid. In lieu of imprisonment, petitioner
is ordered to pay a fine of ₱200,000.00.
 TITLE: JOCELYN ASISTIO Y CONSINO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND MONICA NEALIGA, Respondent. G.R. No. 200465
DATE: April 20, 2015
PONENTE: PERALTA, J.:
HEADING: FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (Jurisdiction over the subject
Matter.

APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MONICA NEALIGA,

APPELLANT: JOCELYN ASISTIO Y CONSINO

FACTS:
Jocelyn Asistio Y Constantino was charge with the Violation of section 46 of the Cooperative
Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 6938).
Becoming the A's chairperson of Mabini Elementary Schoool With the Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phils, School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Asistio had signed an exclusive
dealership agreement. for the school's selling of soft drink goods. Following the
prosecution's presentation and offer of evidence, Asistio attempted to dismiss the case by a
demurrer to evidence with the court's previous approval. The prosecutor argued that the
RTC of Manila lacked jurisdiction over the case because the crime charges did not carry a
penalty for which she could be held criminally liable. The RTC dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction and rejected the prosecutor's motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal
for lack of merit. Unhappy, the People of the Philippines, represented by the OSG, appealed
the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and overturned the RTC.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED:
That on or about July 27, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being
then the Chairperson and Managing Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, and as such, have a complete control and exclusively manage
the entire business of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously acquires, in violation of her duty as
such and the confidence reposed on her, personal interest or equity adverse to A. Mabini
Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative by then and there entering into a
contract with Coca Cola Products at A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose
Cooperative in her own personal capacity when in truth and in fact as the said accused fully
well knew, the sale of Coca-Cola products at A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-
Purpose Cooperative should have accrued to A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-
Purpose Cooperative to the damage and prejudice of A. Mabini Elementary School
Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
NATURE OF THE CASE:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are the
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated August 31, 2011 and its Resolution2 dated
January 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR No. 32363.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) (Put the ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
procedural issue(s) PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
identified by the court.
Also, indicate how the SC
ruled)
Which court has the Petitioner moved to dismiss the Ruling of the Court of
jurisdiction over the case? case by way of Demurrer to Appeals that it is the
The RTC, not the MeTC, Evidence with prior leave of RTC, not the
has jurisdiction over the court. She argued, among MeTC,which has
case, according to the other matters, that the jurisdiction over the
Court of Appeals' decision. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of case.In criminal cases,
In criminal cases, the Manila, Branch 40, does not the jurisdiction of the
jurisdiction of the court is have jurisdiction over the case, court is determined by
established by the as the crime charged (Violation the averments of the
allegations in the complaint of Section 46 of RA 6938) does complaint or information,
or information, in relation to not carry with it a sanction for in relation to the law
the law in effect at the time which she can be held prevailing at the time of
the complaint or the filing of the complaint
 information was filed, and criminally liable. or information andthe
by the penalty specified by penalty provided by law
law for the crime charged for the crime charged at
at the time it was the time of its
committed. commission.

HELD/RATIO:
Moreover, in People v. Doriguez,37 the Court held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
It is a cardinal rule that the protection against double jeopardy may be invoked
only for the same offense or identical offenses. A simple act may offend
against two (or more) entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, and if
one provision requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other
does not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one
does not bar prosecution under the other. Phrased elsewise, where two
different laws (or articles of the same code) defines two crimes, prior jeopardy
as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both
offenses arise from the same fact, if each crime involves some important act
which is not an essential element of the other.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED, and the

Court of Appeals Decision dated August 31, 2011 and its Resolution dated Jan. 31, 2012
in CA-G.R. CR No. 32363, are AFFIRMED.
 TITLE: VICENTE FOZ, JR. and DANNY G. FAJARDO vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 167764
DATE: 09 October 2009
PONENTE: PERALTA, J.:
HEADING: FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (Jurisdiction over the subject
Matter.

APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

APPELLANT: VICENTE FOZ, JR. and DANNY G. FAJARDO

FACTS:
Vicente Foz Jr. and Danny Fajardo, the petitioners, were accused of libel. They entered a
not guilty plea to the felony charged after being arraigned with the assistance of counsel de
parte. Following a trial, both of them were found to be guilty. Petitioners requested a recon,
but it was rejected. Unhappy, they appealed to CA, who fully upheld the RTC's ruling. They
subsequently submitted a recon motion, which CA refused. The petitioners make the claim
that the information accusing them of libel did not contain accusations adequate to give the
RTC of Iloilo City jurisdiction for the first time in their appeal to the SC.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED: That on or about the 5th day of July,

1994 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this court, both the accused as columnist and Editor-
Publisher, respectively, of Panay News, a daily publication with
a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout
the region, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously with malicious intent of impeaching the virtue,
honesty, integrity and reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a
physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City, and with the
malicious intent of injuring and exposing said Dr. Edgar Portigo
to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the
regular issue of said daily publication on July 5, 1994, a
certain article entitled “MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY
PHYSICIAN,” quoted verbatim hereunder, to wit:

MEET DR. PORTIGO,

COMPANY PHYSICIAN

PHYSICIAN (sic) are duly sworn to help to do all their

best to promote the health of their patients. Especially if
they are employed by a company to serve its
employees.

However, the opposite appears to be happening in the

Local San Miguel Corporation office, SMC employees
are fuming mad about their company physician, Dr.
Portigo, because the latter is not doing well in his sworn
obligation in looking after the health problems of
employees, reports reaching Aim.. Fire say.

One patient, Lita Payunan, wife of employee Wilfredo

Payunan, and residing in Burgos, Lapaz, Iloilo City, has a
sad tale to say about Dr. Portigo. Her story began
September 19 last year when she felt ill and had to go
to Dr. Portigo for consultation. The doctor put her under
observation, taking seven months to conclude that she had
rectum myoma and must undergo an operation.

Subsequently, the family sought the services of a Dr.

Celis and a Dr. de los Reyes at Doctor’s Hospital.
Incidentally, where Dr. Portigo also maintains a clinic. Dr.
Portigo got angry, sources said, after knowing that the
family chose a surgeon (Dr. Celis) on their own without
his nod as he had one to recommend.

Lita was operated by Dr. de los Reyes last March and

was released from the hospital two weeks after. Later,
however, she again complained of difficulty in urinating and
defecating [On] June 24, she was readmitted to the
hospital.
 The second operation, done by Dr. Portigo’s
recommendee, was devastating to the family and the
patient herself who woke to find out her anus and vagina
closed and a hole with a catheter punched on her right
side.

This was followed by a bad news that she had cancer.

Dr. Portigo recommended another operation, this time

to bore another hole on the left side of Lita. But a Dr.
Rivera to whom he made the referral frankly turned it down
because it would only be a waste of money since the
disease was already on the terminal state.

The company and the family spent some P150,000.00

to pay for the wrong diagnosis of the company
physician.

My sympathy for Lita and her family. May the good Lord,
Healer of all healers, be on your side, May the Healer of all
healers likewise touch the conscience of physicians to
remind them that their profession is no license for
self-enrichment at the expense of the poor. But, sad to say,
Lita passed away, July 2, 1994.

Lita is not alone. Society is replete with similar

experience where physicians treat their patients for
profits. Where physicians prefer to act like agents of
multinational corporations prescribing expensive drugs
seen if there are equivalent drugs sold at the counter for
much lower price. Yes, Lita, we also have hospitals,
owned by a so-called charitable religious institutions and
so-called civic groups, too greedy for profits.

Instead of promoting baby-and mother-friendly practices

which are cheaper and more effective, they still prefer
the expensive yet unhealthy practices.

The (sic) shun breast feeding and promote infant milk

 formula although mother’s milk is many times cheaper and
more nutrious (sic) than the brands they peddle. These
hospitals separate newly born from their moms for days,
conditioning the former to milk formula while at the same
time stunting the mother’s mammalia from manufacturing
milk. Kadiri to death!

My deepest sympathy to the bereaved family of Mrs.

Lita Payunan who died July 2, 1994, Her body lies at the
Payunan residence located at 236-G Burgos St., Lapaz,
Iloilo City. May you rest in peace, Inday Lita.

wherein said Dr. Portigo was portrayed as wanting in high

sense of professional integrity, trust and responsibility
expected of him as a physician, which imputation and
insinuation as both accused knew were entirely false and
malicious and without foundation in fact and therefore highly
libelous, offensive and derogatory to the good name, character
and reputation of the said Dr. Edgar Portigo.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

NATURE OF THE CASE:

Before the court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City, dated November 24, 2004
in CA-G.R. CR No. 22522, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 23, Iloilo City, dated December 4, 1997 in Criminal Case No. 44527 finding
petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel. Also assailed is the CA
Resolution2 dated April 8, 2005 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) (Put the ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
procedural issue(s) PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
identified by the court.
Also, indicate how the SC
 ruled)
Whether or not the RTC of NO. YES.
Iloilo City had jurisdiction The fact that Smart File was The statement that
over the offense of libel as widely circulated in Manila "Panay News" was "a
charged. does not necessarily imply that daily publication with a
it was initially published and significant circulation in
printed in Manila, just as top the city of Ilo-Ilo and
national dailies are widely throughout the religion"
circulated in Cebu. simply demonstrated that
Ilo-Ilo was the place
where Panay News was
insignificant.

HELD/RATIO: THE RTC OF ILOILO DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
CASE.

DISPOSITION:WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 24,

2004 and the Resolution dated April 8, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
22522 are SET ASIDE on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 23, Iloilo City. Criminal Case No. 44527 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
 TITLE: VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, Petitioners, vs. HON. FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3;
ANTHONY DE LEON and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 164938

DATE: 22 August 2005
PONENTE: CALLEJO, SR., J.
HEADING: FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (Jurisdiction over territory).

APPELLEE: HON. FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge

of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3; ANTHONY DE LEON and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
APPELLANT: VICTOR C. AGUSTIN

FACTS:
Agustin, a columnist for the Phil Daily Inquirer, was accused of libel by the prosecutor of
Baguio in four different information filed before the RTC of Baguio on June 13, 2000.
According to the information, on March 17, 2000, he deliberately published a defamatory
article regarding the private respondent De Leon, the acting general manager of the Baguio
Country Club, buying a home in Greenhills that had formerly belonged to former President
Marcos. The location of Marcos and Dovie Beams' wedding. According to reports, the BIR
was looking into the home and thought the title transfer from Marcosto De Leon was
fraudulent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED:
1
That on or about the 17th day of March 2000, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent
and malicious intent and evil motive of attacking, injuring and impeaching the character,
honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation of one Anthony De Leon the acting general
manager of the Baguio Country Club, and as a private citizen of good standing and
reputation in the community and with malicious intent of exposing the (sic) Anthony De
Leon to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, discredit and dishonor, without any justifiable
motive, did then and there willfully, maliciously and criminally prepare or cause to
1
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/aug2005/gr_164938_2005.html
prepare, write in his column "Cocktails" and publish in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Baguio and in the entire Philippines,
wherein in said column the said accused did then and there defame the complainant
Anthony De Leon by branding and imputing upon him the following defamatory and
libelous statements, to wit:
"The trysting place between the President Marcos and Hollywood actress Dovie Beams
is not the subject of a high level tax evasion investigation ordered by no less than the
new BIR Commissioner, Dakila Fonacier.
That bungalow on Northwestern Street had hastily changed hands in the last two years,
and had supposedly been sold to, first Anthony De Leon, the acting general manager of
the exclusive Baguio Country Club, who in turn disposed of it to an unwitting Chinoy
couple.

NATURE OF THE CASE:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ (CA)
Decision1 in CA-G.R. SP No. 70629 dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition
filed by petitioner Victor C. Agustin which, in turn, assailed the Order of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 3, denying the motion to quash the Informations in
Criminal Case Nos. 17892-R to 17895-R, for libel.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) (Put the ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
procedural issue(s) PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
identified by the court.
Also, indicate how the SC
ruled)
Whether or not whether or Agustin then filed a Motion to Article 360 of the RPC
not the RTC of Baguio City Quash the Informations, on the which provides the rules
has jurisdiction over the sole ground that the court had on venue on Libel cases
offens charged whether the no jurisdiction over the indicated that complaints
Informations may be offenses charged. oflibel should be filed at
amended to cure the said the place where the
defects. article was first published,
 where any of the
offended partiesactually
resides at the time of the
commission of the
offense. If the offended is
a public officer
whoseoffice is in Manila
at the time the
commission of the
offense, action may be
filed at the CFI of
Manila.If the offended
public officer holding
office outside of Manila,
the action may be filed in
the CFI of the province or
city at the time of the
commission of the
offense.

 HELD/RATIO: DIRECTED TO QUASH

Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides –
ART. 360. Persons responsible.— Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause
the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall
be responsible for the same.

DISPOSITION: IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The

assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70629 are SET ASIDE.
The Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, is hereby DIRECTED TO QUASH
the Informations and DISMISS the cases against petitioner Victor C. Agustin in Criminal
Case Nos. 17892-R to 17895-R.
 TITLE: HECTOR TREÑAS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195002
DATE: 25 January 2012
PONENTE: SERENO, J.:
HEADING: FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (Jurisdiction over
territory).
APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
APPELLANT: HECTOR TREÑAS

FACTS:
Margarita Alocilja (Margarita) planned to buy a house and land in Iloilo City in December
1999... mortgaged with Maybank bank manager Joselito Palma suggested the appellant
Hector Treas (Hector) to private plaintiff Elizabeth Hector told Elizabeth that the following
fees would be incurred for the titling of the property in the name of her aunt Margarita
Elizabeth provided Hector P150,000.00, for which he produced a matching receipt dated
December 22, 1999, and created [a] Deed of Sale with Mortgage Assumption. Hector issued
Elizabeth Revenue Official Receipt Nos. 00084370 and 00084369 for P96,000.00 and
P24,000.00, respectively. The Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information before the
Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) on October 29, 2001.
Petitioner claims that there is no evidence in the prosecution's evidence that P150,000 was
delivered to and received by petitioner at Makati City. According to the evidence, the
Receipt issued by petitioner for the money was dated December 22, 1999, with no indication
of where it was issued. Meanwhile, the petitioner's Deed of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage was signed and notarized in Iloilo City. The only time Makati City was referenced
was when the petitioner's cheque was dishonored by Equitable-PCI Bank in its De la Rosa-
Rada Branch in Makati. According to the petitioner, the prosecution witness... failed to
allege that any of the conduct relevant to the offense of estafa had happened in Makati City.
As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED:
Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja (Margarita) wanted to buy a house-and-
lot in Iloilo City covered by TCT No. 109266. It was then mortgaged with Maybank. The
bank manager Joselito Palma recommended the appellant Hector Treñas (Hector) to
private complainant Elizabeth, who was an employee and niece of Margarita, for advice
regarding the transfer of the title in the latter’s name. Hector informed Elizabeth that for
the titling of the property in the name of her aunt Margarita, the following expenses would
be incurred:
P20,000.00- Attorney’s fees,
P90,000.00- Capital Gains Tax,
P24,000.00- Documentary Stamp,
P10,000.00- Miscellaneous Expenses.
Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector who issued a corresponding receipt
dated December 22, 1999 and prepared [a] Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.
Subsequently, Hector gave Elizabeth Revenue Official Receipt Nos. 00084370 for
P96,000.00 and 00084369 for P24,000.00. However, when she consulted with the BIR,
she was informed that the receipts were fake. When confronted, Hector admitted to her
that the receipts were fake and that he used the P120,000.00 for his other transactions.
Elizabeth demanded the return of the money.
To settle his accounts, appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a Bank of Commerce
check No. 0042856 dated November 10, 2000 in the amount of P120,000.00, deducting
from P150,000.00 the P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees. When the check was deposited
with the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the same was dishonored for the reason that the
account was closed. Notwithstanding repeated formal and verbal demands, appellant
failed to pay. Thus, the instant case of Estafa was filed against him.3
On 29 October 2001, an Information was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), both of Makati City. The Information reads as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1999, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, received in trust from ELIZABETH LUCIAJA the amount of P150,000.00 which
money was given to her by her aunt Margarita Alocilja, with the express obligation on the
part of the accused to use the said amount for expenses and fees in connection with the
purchase of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-109266, but the said accused, once
in possession of the said amount, with the intent to gain and abuse of confidence, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert
to his own personal use and benefit the amount of P130,000.00 less attorney’s fees and
 the said accused failed and refused and still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage
and prejudice of complainant Elizabeth Luciaja and Margarita Alocilja in the
aforementioned amount of P130,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

NATURE OF THE CASE:

Where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, courts must keep strictly within the limits
of the law authorizing them to take jurisdiction and to try the case and render judgment
thereon.1
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, seeking to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 9 July
20102 and Resolution dated 4 January 2011.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) (Put the ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
procedural issue(s) PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
identified by the court.
Also, indicate how the SC
ruled)
THE COURT OF APPEALS Petitioners argument said that The place where the
WAS WRONG IN it had no jurisdiction over the crime was committed
DETERMINING THAT AN offense charged. determines not only the
ACCUSED MUST venue of the action but is
PRESENT EVIDENCE IN an essential element of
SUPPORT OF THE jurisdiction.
DEFENSE OF LACK OF
JURISDICTION EVEN IF
SUCH LACK OF
JURISDICTION APPEARS
IN THE PROSECUTION'S
EVIDENCE.

HELD/RATIO:
Review of Factual Findings
While the Petition raises questions of law, the resolution of the Petition requires a review
of the factual findings of the lower courts and the evidence upon which they are based.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 9 July 2010 and the
Resolution dated 4 January 2011 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
32177 are SET ASIDE on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 137, Makati City. Criminal Case No. 01-2409 is DISMISSED without
prejudice. This case is REFERRED to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and
recommendation pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
 TITLE: UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 192565
DATE: 28 February 2012
PONENTE: BRION, J.:
HEADING: FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION (Jurisdiction over territory).
APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
APPELLANT: UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS

FACTS:
Tomas was charged with perjury in court under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) for providing false information in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. The charge
originated from petitioner Union Bank's two petitions for an amount of money and a writ of
replevin against Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe.
Tomas performed and signed the Certification against Forum Shopping, according to both
accusations. As a result, she was charged with breaching Article 183 of the RPC on
purpose by fraudulently asserting on oath in the Certificate against Forum Shopping in the
second complaint that she had not commenced any other action or procedure regarding the
same subject in another tribunal or agency. Tomas filed a Motion to Quash for two reasons.
First, she claimed that the venue was wrongly set because the certificate against forum
shopping was presented and used in the Pasay City court, not the MeTC-Makati City.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED:

That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make untruthful
statements under oath upon a material matter before a competent person authorized to
administer oath which the law requires to wit: said accused stated in the
Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of a complaint for sum of money with prayer for
a writ of replevin docketed as [Civil] Case No. 342-00 of the Metropolitan Trial Court[,]
Pasay City, that the Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any other action
or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or agency, accused knowing
 well that said material statement was false thereby making a willful and deliberate
assertion of falsehood.

NATURE OF THE CASE:

We review in this Rule 45 petition, the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65,
Makati City (RTC-Makati City) in Civil Case No. 09-1038. The petition seeks to reverse
and set aside the RTC-Makati City decision dismissing the petition for certiorari of
petitioners Union Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) and Desi Tomas (collectively, the
petitioners). The RTC found that the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City
(MeTC-Makati City) did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to
quash the information for perjury filed by Tomas.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) (Put the ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
procedural issue(s) PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
identified by the court.
Also, indicate how the SC
ruled)
The case presents to us The petitioners argues that we We deny the petition and
the issue of what the reverse the RTC-Makati City hold that the MeTC-
proper venue of perjury decision and quash the Makati City is the proper
under Article 183 of the Information for perjury against venue and the proper
RPC should be Makati City, Tomas. court to take cognizance
where the Certificate of the perjury case
against Forum Shopping against the petitioners.
was notarized, or Pasay
City, where the Certification
was presented to the trial
court.

HELD/RATIO:
Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the
place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction
to try and hear the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for
lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
 TITLE: JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, and ROMEO B.
OCON, Petitioners, vs. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO G.R. No. 158763
DATE: 31 March 2006.
PONENTE: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
HEADING: Jurisdiction over the person.
APPELLEE:VIRGILIO M. TULIAO
APPELLANT: JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, and ROMEO B. OCON

FACTS:
On 8 March 1996, the burnt cadavers of Vicente Buazon and Elizer Tuliao (son
ofrespondent, Virgilio Tuliao) was discovered at Ramon Isabela, two informations for murder
wasfiled at the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Isabela against SPO1 Wilfredo Leano,
SPO1Ferdinand Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Micu, SPO2 Rodel
Maderal andSPO4 Emilio Ramirez due to it. The event was eventually relocated to RTC
Manila. Except for SPO2 Maderal, who had yet to be charged and was still at large, the
defendants were convicted and sentenced to two counts of reclusionperpetua on 22 April
1999 by the RTC of Manila. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the
defendants were found not guilty due to reasonable doubt. After SPO2 Maderal admitted
that petitioners Jose Miranda et al. were involved for the aforementioned murder,
respondent Virgilio Tuliao filed a complaint against the petitioners. Petitioners filed an
Urgent Motion to Complete Preliminary Investigation, Reinvestigate, and Recall and/or
Quash the Warrants of Arrest after the warrants were issued. During the hearing of the
aforementioned motion, Judge Tumaliaun observed the petitioners' absence and issued a
joint order dismissing the request on the grounds that because the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over their persons, the motion could not be properly considered by the court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED:
On 8 March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon,
Isabela, which were later identified as the dead bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer
Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness protection
program.
 Two informations for murder were filed against SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, SPO1 Ferdinand
Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Micu, SPO2 Rodel Maderal, and
SPO4 Emilio Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City.
The venue was later transferred to Manila. On 22 April 1999, the RTC of Manila
convicted all of the accused and sentenced them to two counts of reclusion perpetua
except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large. The case
was appealed to this Court on automatic review where we, on 9 October 2001, acquitted
the accused therein on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Sometime in September 1999, SPO2 Maderal was arrested. On 27 April 2001, he
executed a sworn confession and identified petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B.
Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio, a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the
persons responsible for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao.
NATURE OF THE CASE:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
18 December 2002 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67770 and its
12 June 2003 Resolution denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) (Put the ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
procedural issue(s) PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
identified by the court.
Also, indicate how the SC
ruled)
Whether or not the court Motion to complete preliminary YES
has lawfully acquired investigation, to reinvestigate, Adjudication of a motion
jurisdiction over the person and to recall and/or quash the to quash a warrant of
of the warrants of arrest. arrest requires neither
accused. jurisdiction over the
Yes, in criminal cases, person of the accused,
jurisdiction over the person nor custody of law over
of the accused is deemed the body of the accused.
waived (you
submit yourself to the
jurisdiction of the court) by
the accused when he files
 any pleading
seeking san affirmative
relief, except in cases
when he invokes the
special jurisdiction over his
person. Therefore, in
narrow cases involving
special appearances, an
accused can invoke the
processes of the court
even though there is
neither jurisdiction over the
person nor custody of the
law. However, if a person
invoking the special
jurisdiction of the court
applies for bail, he must
first submit himself to the
custody of the law.

 HELD/RATIO:
Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither jurisdiction over the
person of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, finding public respondent Judge Anastacio D. Anghad to
have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing the assailed Orders, the instant petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition is
hereby GRANTED and GIVEN DUE COURSE,
TITLE: GREGORIO B. HONASAN II, petitioner, vs. THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING
PROSECUTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (LEO DACERA, SUSAN F.
DACANAY, EDNA A. VALENZUELA AND SEBASTIAN F. CAPONONG, JR.), CIDG-PNP-
P/DIRECTOR EDUARDO MATILLANO, and HON. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V.
MARCELO, respondents G.R. No. 159747
DATE: 13 April 2004
PONENTE: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
HEADING: Prosecutive Jurisdiction - Office of the Ombudsman
APPELLEE: THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE (LEO DACERA, SUSAN F. DACANAY, EDNA A. VALENZUELA AND
SEBASTIAN F. CAPONONG, JR.), CIDG-PNP- P/DIRECTOR EDUARDO MATILLANO,
and HON. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO
APPELLANT: GREGORIO B. HONASAN II

FACTS:
On August 4, 2003, respondent CIDG-PNP/P Director Eduardo Matillano filed an affidavit-
complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging a coup d'etat conducted by military
soldiers who invaded Oakwood on July 27, 2003, and Senator Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan,
II. The complaint-affidavit is docketed as I.S. No. 2003-1120, and the Department of
Justice's Panel of Investigating Prosecutors (DOJ Panel for short) issued a subpoena to
petitioner for a preliminary inquiry.
Senator Honasan appeared with counsel at the DOJ on August 27, 2003, to file a Motion for
Clarification questioning the DOJ's jurisdiction over the case, claiming that the alleged acts
were committed in relation to his public office by a group of public officials with Salary Grade
31, and that the case should be handled by the Office of the Ombudsman and the
Sandiganbayan. Senator Honasan then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court against the DOJ Panel and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Eduardo
Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the DOJ Panel in issuing the aforequoted Order of September 10, 2003 directing him
to file his respective counter-affidavits and controverting evidence on the ground that the
DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED:
On August 4, 2003, an affidavit-complaint was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ)
by respondent CIDG-PNP/P Director Eduardo Matillano. It reads in part:
…
2. After a thorough investigation, I found that a crime of coup d'etat was indeed
committed by military personnel who occupied Oakwood on the 27th day of July 2003
and Senator Gregorio "Gringo"Honasan, II …
3. …
4. The said crime was committed as follows:
4.1 On June 4, 2003, at on or about 11 p.m., in a house located in San Juan, Metro
Manila, a meeting was held and presided by Senator Honasan. Attached as Annex "B" is
the affidavit of Perfecto Ragil and made an integral part of this complaint.
…
4.8 In the early morning of July 27, 2003, Capt. Gerardo Gambala, for and in behalf of
the military rebels occupying Oakwood, made a public statement aired on nation
television, stating their withdrawal of support to the chain of command of the AFP and
the Government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and they are willing to risk their
lives in order to achieve the National Recovery Agenda of Sen. Honasan, which they
believe is the only program that would solve the ills of society. . . . (Emphasis supplied).
The Sworn Statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil referred to by PNP/P Director
Matillano is quoted verbatim, to wit:
1. That I am a member of the Communication –Electronics and Information Systems
Services, Armed Forces of the Philippines with the rank of Major;
2. That I met a certain Captain Gary Alejano of the Presidential Security Guard (PSG)
during our Very Important Person (VIP) Protection Course sometime in last week of
March 2003;
3. That sometime in May 2003, Captain Alejano gave me a copy of the pamphlet of the
National Recovery Program (NRP) and told me that: "Kailangan ng Bansa ng taong
kagaya mo na walang bahid ng corruption kaya basahin mo ito (referring to NRP)
pamphlet. I took the pamphlet but never had the time to read it;
4. That sometime in the afternoon of June 4, 2003, Captain Alejano invited me to join him
in a meeting where the NRP would be discussed and that there would be a special
guest;
5. That Capt. Alejano and I arrived at the meeting at past 9 o'clock in the evening of June
4, 2003 in a house located somewhere in San Juan, Metro Manila;
6. That upon arrival we were given a document consisting of about 3-4 pages containing
discussion of issues and concerns within the framework of NRP and we were likewise
served with dinner;
7. That while we were still having dinner at about past 11 o'clock in the evening, Sen.
Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan arrived together with another fellow who was later introduced
as Capt. Turingan;
8. That after Sen. Honasan had taken his dinner, the meeting proper started presided by
Sen. Honasan;
9. That Sen. Honasan discussed the NRP, the graft and corruption in the government
including the military institution, the judiciary, the executive branch and the like;
10. That the discussion concluded that we must use force, violence and armed struggle
to achieve the vision of NRP. At this point, I raised the argument that it is my belief that
reforms will be achieved through the democratic processes and not thru force and
violence and/or armed struggle. Sen. Honasan countered that "we will never achieve
reforms through the democratic processes because the people who are in power will not
give up their positions as they have their vested interests to protect." After a few more
exchanges of views, Sen. Honasan appeared irritated and asked me directly three (3)
times: "In ka ba o out?" I then asked whether all those present numbering 30 people,
more or less, are really committed, Sen. Honasan replied: "Kung kaya nating pumatay sa
ating mga kalaban, kaya din nating pumatay sa mga kasamahang magtataksil." I decided
not to pursue further questions;
11. That in the course of the meeting, he presented the plan of action to achieve the
goals of NRP, i.e., overthrow of the government under the present leadership thru armed
revolution and after which, a junta will be constituted and that junta will run the new
government. He further said that some of us will resign from the military service and
occupy civilian positions in the new government. He also said that there is urgency that
we implement this plan and that we would be notified of the next activities.
12. That after the discussion and his presentation, he explained the rites that we were to
undergo-some sort of "blood compact". He read a prayer that sounded more like a
pledge and we all recited it with raised arms and clenched fists. He then took a knife and
demonstrated how to make a cut on the left upper inner arm until it bleeds. The cut was
in form of the letter "I" in the old alphabet but was done in a way that it actually looked
like letter "H". Then, he pressed his right thumb against the blood and pressed the thumb
on the lower middle portion of the copy of the Prayer. He then covered his thumb mark in
blood with tape. He then pressed the cut on his left arm against the NRP flag and left
mark of letter "I" on it. Everybody else followed;
13. That when my turn came, I slightly made a cut on my upper inner arm and pricked a
portion of it to let it bleed and I followed what Senator HONASAN did;
14. That I did not like to participate in the rites but I had the fear for my life with what
Senator HONASAN said that "…kaya nating pumatay ng kasamahan";
15. That after the rites, the meeting was adjourned and we left the place;
16. That I avoided Captain Alejano after that meeting but I was extra cautious that he
would not notice it for fear of my life due to the threat made by Senator HONASAN
during the meeting on June 4, 2003 and the information relayed to me by Captain
Alejano that their group had already deeply established their network inside the
intelligence community;
17. That sometime in the first week of July 2003, Captain Alejano came to see me to
return the rifle that he borrowed and told me that when the group arrives at the
Malacañang Compound for "D-DAY", my task is to switch off the telephone PABX that
serves the Malacañang complex. I told him that I could not do it. No further conversation
ensued and he left;
18. That on Sunday, July 27, 2003, while watching the television, I saw flashed on the
screen Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes, Captain Gerardo Gambala, Captain Alejano and
some others who were present during the June 4th meeting that I attended, having a
press conference about their occupation of the Oakwood Hotel. I also saw that the letter
"I" on the arm bands and the banner is the same letter "I" in the banner which was
displayed and on which we pressed our wound to leave the imprint of the letter "I";
19. That this Affidavit is being executed in order to attest the veracity of the foregoing
and in order to charge SENATOR GREGORIO "GRINGO" HONASAN, Capt. FELIX
TURINGAN, Capt. GARY ALEJANO, Lt. ANTONIO TRILLANES, Capt. GERARDO
GAMBALA and others for violation of Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code for the
offense of "coup d'etat". (Emphasis supplied)
The affidavit-complaint is docketed as I.S. No. 2003-1120 and the Panel of Investigating
Prosecutors of the Department of Justice (DOJ Panel for brevity) sent a subpoena to
petitioner for preliminary investigation.
On August 27, 2003, petitioner, together with his counsel, appeared at the DOJ. He filed
a Motion for Clarification questioning DOJ's jurisdiction over the case, asserting that
since the imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office, it is the Office of
the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to conduct the corresponding
preliminary investigation; that should the charge be filed in court, it is the
Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, that can legally take cognizance of the case
considering that he belongs to the group of public officials with Salary Grade 31; and
praying that the proceedings be suspended until final resolution of his motion.
Respondent Matillano submitted his comment/opposition thereto and petitioner filed a
reply.
On September 10, 2003, the DOJ Panel issued an Order, to wit:
On August 27, 2003, Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II filed through counsel a "Motion to
Clarify Jurisdiction". On September 1, 2003, complainant filed a Comment/Opposition to
the said motion.
The motion and comment/opposition are hereby duly noted and shall be passed upon in
the resolution of this case.
In the meantime, in view of the submission by complainant of additional
affidavits/evidence and to afford respondents ample opportunity to controvert the same,
respondents, thru counsel are hereby directed to file their respective counter-affidavits
and controverting evidence on or before September 23, 2003.1
Hence, Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II filed the herein petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court against the DOJ Panel and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director
Eduardo Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in issuing the aforequoted Order of September
10, 2003 on the ground that the DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary
investigation.
Respondent Ombudsman, the Office of Solicitor General in representation of
respondents DOJ Panel, and Director Matillano submitted their respective comments.
The Court heard the parties in oral arguments on the following issues:
1) Whether respondent Department of Justice Panel of Investigators has jurisdiction to
conduct preliminary investigation over the charge of coup d'etat against petitioner;
2) Whether Ombudsman-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 violates the Constitution and Republic
Act No. 6770 or Ombudsman Act of 1989; and
3) Whether respondent DOJ Panel of Investigators committed grave abuse of discretion
in deferring the resolution of the petitioner's motion to clarify jurisdiction considering the
claim of the petitioner that the DOJ Panel has no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation.
After the oral arguments, the parties submitted their respective memoranda. The
arguments of petitioner are:
1. The Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation
over all public officials, including petitioner.
2. Respondent DOJ Panel is neither authorized nor deputized under OMB-DOJ Joint
Circular No. 95-001 to conduct the preliminary investigation involving Honasan.
3. Even if deputized, the respondent DOJ Panel is still without authority since OMB-DOJ
Joint Circular No. 95-001 is ultra vires for being violative of the Constitution, beyond the
powers granted to the Ombudsman by R.A. 6770 and inoperative due to lack of
publication, hence null and void.
4. Since petitioner is charged with coup de 'etat in relation to his office, it is the Office of
the Ombudsman which has the jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation.
5. The respondent DOJ Panel gravely erred in deferring the resolution of petitioner's
Motion to Clarify Jurisdiction since the issue involved therein is determinative of the
validity of the preliminary investigation.
6. Respondent DOJ Panel gravely erred when it resolved petitioner's Motion in the guise
of directing him to submit Counter-Affidavit and yet refused and/or failed to perform its
duties to resolve petitioner's Motion stating its legal and factual bases.
The arguments of respondent DOJ Panel are:
1. The DOJ has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation on petitioner
pursuant to Section 3, Chapter I, Title III, Book IV of the Revised Administrative Code of
1987 in relation to P.D. No. 1275, as amended by P.D. No. 1513.
2. Petitioner is charged with a crime that is not directly nor intimately related to his public
office as a Senator. The factual allegations in the complaint and the supporting affidavits
are bereft of the requisite nexus between petitioner's office and the acts complained of.
3. The challenge against the constitutionality of the OMB-DOJ Joint Circular, as a ground
to question the jurisdiction of the DOJ over the complaint below, is misplaced. The
jurisdiction of the DOJ is a statutory grant under the Revised Administrative Code. It is
not derived from any provision of the joint circular which embodies the guidelines
governing the authority of both the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct
preliminary investigation on offenses charged in relation to public office.
4. Instead of filing his counter-affidavit, petitioner opted to file a motion to clarify
jurisdiction which, for all intents and purposes, is actually a motion to dismiss that is a
prohibited pleading under Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. The DOJ Panel is not required to act or even recognize it since a preliminary
investigation is required solely for the purpose of determining whether there is a sufficient
ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. The DOJ panel did not
outrightly reject the motion of petitioner but ruled to pass upon the same in the
determination of the probable cause; thus, it has not violated any law or rule or any norm
of discretion.
The arguments of respondent Ombudsman are:
1. The DOJ Panel has full authority and jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation
over the petitioner for the reason that the crime of coup d'etat under Article No. 134-A of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) may fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only
if the same is committed "in relation to office" of petitioner, pursuant to Section 4, P.D.
No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249.
2. Petitioner's premise that the DOJ Panel derives its authority to conduct preliminary
investigation over cases involving public officers solely from the OMB-DOJ Joint Circular
No. 95-001 is misplaced because the DOJ's concurrent authority with the OMB to
conduct preliminary investigation of cases involving public officials has been recognized
in Sanchez vs. Demetriou (227 SCRA 627 [1993]) and incorporated in Section 4, Rule
112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3. Petitioner's assertion that the Joint Circular is ultra vires and the DOJ cannot be
deputized by the Ombudsman en masse but must be given in reference to specific cases
has no factual or legal basis. There is no rule or law which requires the Ombudsman to
write out individualized authorities to deputize prosecutors on a per case basis. The
power of the Ombudsman to deputize DOJ prosecutors proceeds from the Constitutional
grant of power to request assistance from any government agency necessary to
discharge its functions, as well as from the statutory authority to so deputize said DOJ
prosecutors under Sec. 31 of RA 6770.
4. The Joint Circular which is an internal arrangement between the DOJ and the Office of
the Ombudsman need not be published since it neither contains a penal provision nor
does it prescribe a mandatory act or prohibit any under pain or penalty. It does not
regulate the conduct of persons or the public, in general.
The Court finds the petition without merit.
The authority of respondent DOJ Panel is based not on the assailed OMB-DOJ Circular
No. 95-001 but on the provisions of the 1987 Administrative Code under Chapter I, Title
III, Book IV, governing the DOJ, which provides:
Sec. 1. Declaration of policy - It is the declared policy of the State to provide the
government with a principal law agency which shall be both its legal counsel and
prosecution arm; administer the criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted
processes thereof consisting in the investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders
and administration of the correctional system; …
Sec. 3. Powers and Functions - To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have
the following powers and functions:
…
(2) Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the
probation and correction system; (Emphasis supplied)
and Section 1 of P.D. 1275, effective April 11, 1978, to wit:
SECTION 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control of
the Secretary of Justice. – There is hereby created and established a National
Prosecution Service under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice, to be
composed of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice and such
number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and City Fiscal's Offices as
are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily responsible for the investigation and
prosecution of all cases involving violations of penal laws. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner claims that it is the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to
conduct the preliminary investigation under paragraph (1), Section 13, Article XI of the
1987 Constitution, which confers upon the Office of the Ombudsman the power
to investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any
public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. Petitioner rationalizes that the 1987 Administrative
Code and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 cannot prevail over the Constitution, pursuant to
Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall
be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are
not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.
NATURE OF THE CASE:

The affidavit-complaint is docketed as I.S. No. 2003-1120 and the Panel of Investigating
Prosecutors of the Department of Justice (DOJ Panel for brevity) sent a subpoena to
petitioner for preliminary investigation.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) (Put the ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
procedural issue(s) PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
identified by the court.
Also, indicate how the SC
ruled)
Whether in regards to Petitioner claims that it is the The petition for certiorari
Ombudsman-DOJ Circular Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that is DISMISSED for lack of
no. 95-001, the office of the has the jurisdiction to conduct merit.
Ombudsman should the preliminary investigation
deputize the prosecutors of under paragraph (1), Section
the DOJ to conduct the 13, Article XI of the 1987
preliminary investigation. Constitution, which confers
No. upon the Office of the
Ombudsman cases Ombudsman the power
involving criminal offenses to investigate on its own, or on
may be subdivided into two complaint by any person, any
classes, to wit: (1) those act or omission of any public
cognizable by the official, employee, office or
Sandiganbayan, and (2) agency, when such act or
those falling under the omission appears to be illegal,
jurisdiction of the regular unjust, improper, or inefficient.
courts. The difference
between the two, aside
from the category of the
courts wherein they are
filed, is on the authority to
investigate as distinguished
 from the authority to
prosecute

HELD/RATIO:
Pari materia to Article XI, Sections 12 and 13 of the 1987 Constitution and the
Ombudsman Act of 1989 because, as earlier mentioned, the Ombudsman's power to
investigate is dependent on the cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Statutes are
in pari materia when they relate to the same person or thing or to the same class of
persons or things, or object, or cover the same specific or particular subject matter.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition and to order the Department
of Justice to refrain from conducting preliminary investigation of the complaint for coup
d'etat against petitioner for lack of jurisdiction.
1 Annex "A", Rollo, p. 67.
2 78 Phil. 1 (1947).
3 G.R. Nos. 92319-20, October 2, 1990; 190 SCRA 226, 240.
4 Id., p. 241.
5 G.R. No. 90591, November 21, 1990; 191 SCRA 545, 550-551.
6 Id., pp. 551-552.
7 G.R. Nos. 111771-77, November 9, 1993; 227 SCRA 627.
 TITLE:PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs. HENRY T. GO, Respondent. G.R. No. 168359
DATE: 25 March 2014
PONENTE: PERALTA, J.:
HEADING: Adjucative Jurisdiction - Sandiganbayan
APPELLEE: HENRY T. GO, Respondent
APPELLANT: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
This case is an offshoot to the Court’s decision in Agan vs PIATCO where the Court nullified
the various contract awarded by Govt (DOTC) to PIATCO for the construction, operation
and maintenance of the NAIA IPT III. Subsequent to this Agan decision, a complaint filed
with the Office of the Ombusdman against several individual for alleged violation of RA3019,
among others as to the Side Agreement and Concession Agreement. Among those charged
was respondent Henry Go, who was then the Chairman and President of PIATCO, in
conspiracy with then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile (Secretary Enrile) in entering into a
contract which is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The Office of
the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict, among others, herein
respondent for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019.
There was likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary Enrile, however he was no
longer indicted because he died prior to the issuance of the resolution finding probable
cause. Thus, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan against the respondent
Henry Go.
INFORMATION FILED:

The Information filed against respondent is an offshoot of this Court's Decision3 in Agan,
Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. which nullified the various contracts
awarded by the Government, through the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC), to Philippine Air Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO) for the
construction, operation and maintenance of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III). Subsequent to the above Decision, a
certain Ma. Cecilia L. Pesayco filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against
several individuals for alleged violation of R.A. 3019. Among those charged was herein
respondent, who was then the Chairman and President of PIATCO, for having supposedly
conspired with then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile (Secretary Enrile) in entering into a
 contract which is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

On September 16, 2004, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable
cause to indict, among others, herein respondent for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A.
3019. While there was likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary Enrile, he
was no longer indicted because he died prior to the issuance of the resolution finding
probable cause.

NATURE OF THE CASE:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution1 of the Third
Division2 of the Sandiganbayan (SB) dated June 2, 2005 which quashed the Information
filed against herein respondent for alleged violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No.
3019 (R.A. 3019), otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) ARGUMENT OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

(1) Is the Sandiganbayan Claims in his Manifestation and Lack of jurisdiction over
has jurisdiction of this case? Motion as well as in his Urgent the person of the
(2) May a private person be Motion to Resolve defendant may be waived
impleaded for violation of that in a different case ( G.R. either expressly or
under Sec.3(g) of RA3019 No. 168919), he was likewise impliedly. When a
(3) Can Go be still indicted before the SB for defendant voluntarily
prosecuted despite the conspiracy with the late appears, he is deemed to
death of co-conspirator Secretary Enrile in violating the have submitted himself to
public officer same Section 3 (g) of R.A. the jurisdiction of the
(4) Did the Sandiganbayan 3019 court.
correctly acquired the
jurisdiction over the person
of the accused?
HELD/RATIO:
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan dated June 2, 2005, granting respondent's Motion to Quash, is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is forthwith DIRECTED to proceed
with deliberate dispatch in the disposition of Criminal Case No. 28090.

REFERRENCE
Go v. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, 549 Phil. 783, 799 (2007).
Gregorio Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30,
2013; Santillano v. People, G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 164; Go v.
Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, supra; Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 514 Phil. 536
(2005); Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149175, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 203;
Luciano v. Estrella, G.R. No. L-31622, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 769.
See Go v. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, supra note 11.
Records, vol. 1, p. 106.
15 C.J.S. Conspiracy § 82, p. 1115.