1. SANCHEZ V. DEMETRIOU FACTS: On July 28, 1993, the Presidenti Presidential al Anti-Cri Anti-Crime me Commissi Commission on requested requested the filing of appropriat appropriate e charges charges against several persons, including the petitioner, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. Acting on this request, the Panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice conducted a preliminary investigation. Petitioner Petitioner Sanchez was not present but was represented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr. At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively identified by the witnesses, who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. The petitioner was then placed on "arrest status" and taken to the Department of Justice in Manila. A warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez. The respondent prosecutors thereafter filed with the RTC-Laguna seven informations charging Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon, Pepito Kawit, Baldwin Brion, Jr., George Medialdea and Zoilo Ama with the the rape and killing killing of Mary Eileen Eileen Sarmenta. •
•
•
•
ISSUE: Whether a defect is present p resent in the seven informations filed against the petitioner and his co-defendants. HELD: The petitioner avers that the seven informations charging seven separate are absurd because the two victims in these cases could not have died seven times. But this argument was correctly refuted by the Solicitor General in this wise: Where there are two or more offenders who commit rape, the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. It is clearly provided in Rule 110 of the Rules of Court that: Sec. 13. Duplicity of offense. offense . A complaint complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a simple punishment for various offenses. Rape with homicide comes within the exception under R.A. 2632 and R.A. 4111, amending the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner and his six co-accused are not charged with only one rape committed by him in conspiracy with the other six. Each one of the seven accused is charged with having himself raped Sarmenta instead of simply helping Sanchez in committing only one rape. The separate informations filed against each of them allege that each of the seven successive rapes is complexed by the subsequent slaying of Sarmenta and aggravated by the killing of Allan Gomez by her seven attackers. The separate rapes were committed in succession by the seven accused, culminating in the slaying of Sarmenta. It is of course absurd to suggest that Mary Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez were killed seven times, but the informations do not make such a suggestion. It is the petitioner who does so and is thus hoist by his own petard. •
•
•
•
•
2. UY V. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Before the Court is the Motion for Further Clarification filed by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto of the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9, 1999 and resolution dated February 22, 2000 that the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts. Issue: W/N the Ombudsman has the power to conduct preliminary investigation and the subsequent prosecution of criminal offenses in the light of the provisions of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 Held: We held that the Ombudsman Ombudsman is clothed clothed with authority authority to conduct conduct prelimina preliminary ry investig investigation ation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within the jurisdiction of the regular cou rts as well. The authority authority of the Ombudsman to investigat investigate e and prosecute offenses offenses committed committed by public public officers officers and employees is founded in Section 15 and Section 11 of RA 6770. Section 15 vests the Ombudsman with the
power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient . The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause "any illegal act or omission of any public official" is b road enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee. Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primary jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman "to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such cases." The exercise by the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and employees. The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and employees is one of the most important functions of the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with such power to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office. President Marcos, on June 11, 1978, exercising his power under Proclamation 1081, enacted Presidential Decree (PD) 1487 creating the Office of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. Shortly after its enactment, PD 1487 was amended by PD 1607 which took effect on December 10, 1978. The amendatory law broadened the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate administrative acts of administrative agencies by authorizing it to conduct an investigation on its own motion or initiative, even without a complaint from any person. The new law also expanded the prosecutory function of the Tanodbayan by creating the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor in the Office of the Tanodbayan and placing under his direction and control the Special Prosecutor who had the "exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; to file informations therefor and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases therein. On July 18, 1979, PD 1630 was enacted further amending PD 1487 and PD 1607. PD 1630 reorganized the Office of the Tanodbayan and transferred the powers previously vested in the Special Prosecutor to the Tanodbayan himself. Thus, the Tanodbayan was empowered to directly conduct preliminary investigation, file information and prosecute cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and other courts. The amendment gave the Tanodbayan the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; to file information therefor and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases. Finally, it must be clarified that the authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute cases involving public officers and employees before the regular courts does not conflict with the power of the regular prosecutors under the Department of Justice to control and direct the prosecution of all criminal actions under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rules of Court must be read in conjunction with RA 6770 which charged the Ombudsman with the duty to investigate and prosecute all illegal acts and omissions of public officers and employees. The Court held in the case of Sanchez vs. Demetriou24 that the power of the Ombudsman under Section 15 (1) of RA 6770 is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. 3. BARTOLOME V. PEOPLE Facts: Rolando Bartolome and Elino Coronel are both officers of Ministry of Labor, NCR, Manila. They conspired to falsify the Civil Service Personal Data Sheet of Bartolome making it appear that he passed the career service exam and that he was a 4 th year AB student of FEU. Ricardo Buenviaje, Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor filed a case at the Sandiganbayan accusing them of the crime of Falsification of Official Document. Sandiganbayan convicted them. Petitioners now question the validity of Sandigabayan’s ruling. Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioners’ case
Held: Proceedings in Sandiganbayan are null and void ab initio. Under Section 4 of PD 160, Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over: 1. Violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices and RA 1379 2. Crimes committed by public officers and employees, including those in (Gov’t Owned or Controlled Corporations) GOCCs, embraced in Title VII of the RPC 3. Other crimes or offenses committed by public officers or employees including those employed in GOCCS in relation to their office. Nowhere does the act of falsification belong to the abovementioned cases where the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction. Falsification of Public Document is embraced in Title IV of the RPC. Perhaps the nearest reason for Sandiganbayan’s taking cognizance of the case is scenario 3 in the above enumeration. However, it does not appear that the official positions of Bartolome and Coronel were connected to the offense they committed. They did not need to be government employees to falsify a public document. In the light of the Montilla case, it was upheld that when public office is not an essential ingredient of the offense such that the offense can’t exist without the office, it does not fall under Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. 4. PEOPLE v. CAWALING The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by any subsequent events, such as a new legislation placing such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another tribunal. Exceptions to this rule arise when: (1) there is an express provision in the statute, or (2) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment. FACTS: Brothers Vicente and Ronie Elisan were drinking tuba at the kitchenette of one of the accused, Fontamilla. When they were about to leave, they were warned by Luz Venus that the six (6) accused consisting of Mayor Cawaling, four (4) policemen and a civilian, had been watching and waiting for them outside the restaurant. Nevertheless, the two went out and were ch ased by the armed men. Vicente successfully ran and hid behind a coconut tree while Ronie unfortunately went to the ricefield and was shot to death there. An Information alleging murder was filed in the RTC against the 6 accused. RTC convicted them of murder. On appeal, the appellants questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case, insisting that the Sandiganbayan was the tribunal with jurisdiction since the accused were public officers at the time of the killing. ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction HELD: NO. The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by any subsequent events, such as a new legislation placing such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another tribunal. Exceptions to this rule arise when: (1) there is an express provision in the statute, or (2) the statute is clearly intended to apply to a ctions pending before its enactment. Section 4-a-2 of PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861 lists two requisites that must concur before the Sandiganbayan may exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction over a case: (a) the offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office; and (b) the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or higher than a fine of P6,000. Sanchez vs. Demetriou clarified that murder or homicide may be committed both by public officers and by private citizens, and that public office is not a constitutive element of said crime. The relation between the crime and the office contemplated should be direct and not accidental. The Information filed against the appellants contains no allegation that appellants were public officers who committed the crime in relation to their office. The charge was only for murder. In the absence of any allegation that the offense was committed in relation to the office of appellants or was necessarily connected with the discharge of their functions, the regional trial court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
