CRIM PRO cases

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PEOPLE V. MONTEJO, 108 PHIL. 613Crim Pro -Jurisdiction

Facts:Mayor Leroy Brown of Basilan City, Det. Joaquin Pollisco, Patrolman Graciano Lacema, and other co-accused where charged with murder. It was alleged in the information filed against them that from May to June 1958, the Mayor and his "organized groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes" whom he "armed with pistols and high power guns" established a camp which they called as their 'sub-police headquarters' at Tipo-Tipo, Lamitan. 

The headquarters was placed under the mayor's command, orders, direct supervision and control, and in which his co-defendants were stationed. It was further alleged that criminal complaints were entertained in the sub-station/headquarters where defendant Pollisco acted as "investigating officer and exercised authority to order the apprehension of persons and their detention in the camp, for days or weeks, without due process of law and without bringing them to the proper court." 

Then, on or about June 4, and 5, 1958, Awalin Tebag, a Yakan, was arrested by order of Mayor Brown "without any warrant or complaint filed in court". Tebag was then supposed to be brought to and detained in the sub-station; but, on their way to the sub-station he was allegedly maltreated and tortured by the defendants as also ordered by Mayor Brown. Tebag died as a result of the violence done to him and to cover up his death, the defendants made it appear that Tebag was a member of a band of armed bandits who attacked them prompting them to shoot Tebag to death. Issue:Whether or not Mayor Brown is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.Held: Yes, Mayor Brown committed an offense in relation to his office. A public officer commits an offense in relation to his office if he perpetrates the offense while performing his official functions and that he could not have committed the offense without holding his public office. Although the performance of the official function was improper or is an irregular manner, it was alleged in the information that Mayor Brown established the sub-station and was under his “command,... supervision and control” and that his co-defendants were acting upon his orders. Thus, in this case, there is an intimate connection between the offense and the office of the accused.

G.R. No. L-28699 April 29, 1975

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, -versus-THE HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA CITY, and Accused FRANCISCO LIM, respondents.

FERNANDO, J.:

This is not the first time that former Judge Gregorio D. Montejo, respondent in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding, has been in the predicament of having his rulings on evidentiary matter challenged in this Tribunal. In People v. Montejo, 1 a 1960 decision, he was similarly taken to task for rejecting the prosecution's offer to submit direct and rebuttal evidence. He was ordered to admit the same. As was stressed by the then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion: "Hence, the parties should be allowed a certain latitude in the presentation of their evidence lest they may be so hampered that the ends of justice may eventually be defeated or appear to be defeated. The danger of leading to such result must be avoided, particularly in cases of the nature, importance and significance of the one under consideration." 2 It could be, as he should, that he took to heart such admonition resulting in his having displayed, so the prosecution would assert, excessive liberality in the admission of evidence in the joint trial being conducted that resulted in this petition. It would be ironic, to say the least, and clearly unwarranted in law, if for manifesting fealty to a previous ruling thus addressed to him personally, he had laid himself open to the charge of gravely abusing his discretion. That is hardly in keeping with what was so explicitly decided. The petition then cannot be granted. Neither certiorari nor prohibition lies.

There is no dispute as to the facts. In a joint trial 3 of the accused Francisco Lim, now private respondent, indicted for violation of the Retail Trade Law 4 as well as of the Alien Registration Act of 1950, 5 the crucial issue posed was his citizenship. 6 His being an alien is mainly predicated on the allegation that his election of Philippine citizenship was made over and beyond the period provided for by law. 7 In the course of such joint trial, so it is alleged, respondent Francisco Lim, through his counsel, with the prosecution objecting, presented testimonial and documentary evidence referring to matters pertaining to certain persons, namely, Fernando Nuevo and Porfirio Doctor, who are not parties to the cases. 8 The prosecution was impelled to file this petition based on the apprehension that in allowing such matters to be introduced, there would be not only delay but likewise possible confusion. 9

The petition, rather diffuse and certainly verbose, hardly confined itself to the relevant facts. It was argumentative, even polemical. Its essence could be boiled down to what was above set forth. There was moreover further clarification supplied by the answer of private respondent. As he pointed out, he could not very well be accused of presenting "immaterial and impertinent" oral and documentary evidence covering "extraneous matters" as it was not yet his turn to do so, the prosecution not even having rested its case, no witness in his defense having thus far testified. Thus it did appear that what was objected to was the vigorous cross-examination of his counsel, the questions asked having relevancy either to what was testified to on direct examination or what was mentioned in documentary exhibits of the prosecution. 10 As a matter of fact, the objection now raised in this Court would apply to certain exhibits "produced, presented and testified to before the trial court" by a witness for the prosecution. 11 What is more, it would appear that certain documents forming part of the state's evidence would for reasons hard to fathom be included in the wholesale condemnation of the prosecution. 12 There was a reply to the answer, but there was no refutation of the above assertions.

What appears rather obvious then after the subsequent pleadings and with the exaggerated tone of the petition fully exposed is, to repeat, the absence of any justification for granting the writs prayed for.

1. Respondent Judge certainly has not been shown to be remiss in the fulfillment of his judicial duties. On the contrary, the petition would impute not only abuse of discretion, but grave abuse thereof, when precisely he was manifesting fealty to the well-settled doctrine that a trial judge should display receptivity to offers of evidence as well as to searching questions with the end in view of having the truth come out. It would appear then that the provincial fiscal who filed this petition was motivated more by the apprehension and misgiving that with further information and data furnished the Court, an acquittal would be likely. That of itself is no argument for a petition of this character. Precisely, the constitutional rights granted an accused are intended to assure a full and unimpeded opportunity for him to meet what in the end could be a baseless accusation. Moreover, at the stage of the trial reached, there was an element of prematurity to this proceeding. At any rate, the presumption is to be indulged in that a trial judge can fairly weigh and appraise the evidence submitted by the respective parties. Petitions of this character certainly deserve no encouragement from this Tribunal.

1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2. It cannot be otherwise as the challenged actuation of respondent Judge hardly suffers from an unorthodoxy. Nor should it occasion any surprise. No one could have been more fully aware of the aforecited ruling in People v. Montejo as he was the party directly involved. Nor was there any novelty in the principle therein announced as to the latitude allowed the parties in the presentation of evidence to assure that there be no hindrance to the ends of justice being achieved. It was first enunciated by this Court in Prats and Co. v. Phoenix, 13 a 1929 decision, with Justice Street as ponente. Thus: "In the course of long experience we have observed that justice is most effectively and expeditiously administered in the courts where trivial objections to the admission of proof are received with least favor. The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or technical objections to the form of the questions should be avoided. In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later. Moreover, it must be remembered that in the heat of the battle over which he presides a judge of first instance may possibly fall into error in judging of the relevancy of proof where a fair and logical connection is in fact shown. When such a mistake is made and the proof is erroneously ruled out, the Supreme Court, upon appeal, often finds itself embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the effects of the error without returning the case for a new trial, — a step which this Court is always very loath to take. On the other hand, the admission of proof in a court of first instance, even if the question as to its form, materiality, or relevancy is doubtful, can never result in much harm to either litigant, because the trial judge is supposed to know the law; and it is its duty, upon final consideration of the case, to distinguish the relevant and material from the irrelevant and immaterial." 14 That has been, since then, the invariable approach. 15 This petition, far from justifying any justifiable departure therefrom, demonstrates its continuing validity.

WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit. The preliminary injunction issued is lifted and set aside. The successor of respondent Judge is directed to continue the joint trial forthwith.

SANCHEZ V. DEMETRIOU[GR Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993]

Facts: Information was filed against several people including the petitioner in relation with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. Sanchez has brought the petition to challenge the order of the respondent judge denying his motion to quash the information for rape with homicide filed against him and six other persons on the ground he is being charged with seven homicides arising from the death of only two persons. The petitioner submits that the seven informations charging seven separate homicides are absurd because the two victims in these cases could not have died seven times. 

Issue: Whether or not the court acted properly on denying the petition of Sanchez to quash on the grounds that he is being charged with seven homicides arising from the death of only two persons. 

Held: The court ruled that 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. In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of rape, loses its character as an independent offense, but assumes a new character, and functions like a qualifying circumstance. However,by fiction of law, it merged with rape to constitute an constituent element of a special complex crime of rape with homicide with a specific penalty which is in the highest degree. 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. In other words, the allegation of the prosecution is that the girl was raped seven times, with each of the seven accused taking turns in abusing her with the assistance of the other six. Afterwards, their lust satisfied, all seven of them decided to kill and thus silence Sarmenta. Every one of the seven accused is being charged separately for actually raping Sarmenta and later killing her instead of merely assisting the petitioner in raping and then slaying her. 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. 

G.R. Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993

ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs.The Honorable HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU (in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, NCR, Branch 70, Pasig), The Honorable FRANKLIN DRILON (in his capacity as Secretary of Justice), JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, LEONARDO C. GUIYAB, CARLOS L. DE LEON, RAMONCITO C. MISON, REYNALDO J. LUGTU, and RODRIGO P. LORENZO, the last six respondents in their official capacities as members of the State Prosecutor's Office), respondents.

Mario E. Ongkiko and Marciano P. Brion, Jr. for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

CRUZ, J.:

There is probably no more notorious person in the country today than Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna, who stands accused of an unspeakable crime. On him, the verdict has already been rendered by many outraged persons who would immediately impose on him an angry sentence. Yet, for all the prejudgments against him, he is under our Constitution presumed innocent as long as the contrary has not been proved. Like any other person accused of an offense, he is entitled to the full and vigilant protection of the Bill of Rights.

Sanchez has brought this petition to challenge the order of the respondent judge denying his motion to quash the informations for rape with homicide filed against him and six other persons. We shall treat it as we would any other suit filed by any litigant hoping to obtain a just and impartial judgment from this Court.

The pertinent facts are as follows:

On July 28, 1993, the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of appropriate 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 on August 9, 1993. Petitioner Sanchez was

2

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

not present but was represented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr.

On August 12, 1993, PNP Commander Rex Piad issued an "invitation" to the petitioner requesting him to appear for investigation at Camp Vicente Lim in Canlubang, Laguna. It was served on Sanchez in the morning of August 13,1993, and he was immediately taken to the said camp.

At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio Centeno, and SPO III Vivencio Malabanan, 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.

The respondent prosecutors immediately conducted an inquest upon his arrival, with Atty. Salvador Panelo as his counsel.

After the hearing, a warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez. This warrant was issued on August 13, 1993, by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, in connection with Criminal Cases Nos. 93-124634 to 93-124637 for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 1, of R.A. No. 6713. Sanchez was forthwith taken to the CIS Detention Center, Camp Crame, where he remains confined.

On August 16, 1993, the respondent prosecutors filed with the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, seven informations charging Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon, Pepito Kawit, Baldwin Brion, Jr., George Medialdea and Zoilo Ama with the rape and killing of Mary Eileen Sarmenta.

On August 26, 1993, Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo of that court issued a warrant for the arrest of all the accused, including the petitioner, in connection with the said crime.

The respondent Secretary of Justice subsequently expressed his apprehension that the trial of the said cases might result in a miscarriage of justice because of the tense and partisan atmosphere in Laguna in favor of the petitioner and the relationship of an employee, in the trial court with one of the accused. This Court thereupon ordered the transfer of the venue of the seven cases to Pasig, Metro Manila, where they were raffled to respondent Judge Harriet Demetriou.

On September 10, 1993, the seven informations were amended to include the killing of Allan Gomez as an aggravating circumstance.

On that same date, the petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations substantially on the grounds now raised in this petition. On September 13, 1993, after oral arguments, the respondent judge denied the motion. Sanchez then filed with this Court the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order/writ of injunction.

The petitioner argues that the seven informations filed against him should be quashed because: 1) he was denied the right to present evidence at the preliminary investigation; 2) only the Ombudsman had the competence to conduct the investigation; 3) his warrantless arrest is illegal and the court has therefore not acquired jurisdiction over him, 4) he is being charged with seven homicides arising from the death of only two persons; 5) the informations are discriminatory because they do not include Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia; and 6) as a public officer, he can be tried for the offense only by the Sandiganbayan.

The respondents submitted a Comment on the petition, to which we required a Reply from the petitioner within a non-extendible period of five days. 1 The Reply was filed five days late. 2 The Court may consider his non-compliance an implied admission of the respondents' arguments or a loss of interest in prosecuting his petition, which is a ground for its dismissal. Nevertheless, we shall disregard this procedural lapse and proceed to discuss his petition on the basis of the arguments before us.

The Preliminary Investigation.

The records of the hearings held on August 9 and 13, 1993, belie the petitioner's contention that he was not accorded the right to present counter-affidavits.

During the preliminary investigation on August 9, 1993, the petitioner's counsel, Atty. Marciano Brion, manifested that his client was waiving the presentation of a counter-affidavit, thus:

Atty. Brion, Jr.:

[W]e manifest that after reviewing them there is nothing to rebut or

countermand all these statements as far as Mayor Sanchez is concerned, We are not going to submit any counter-affidavit.

ACSP Zuño to Atty. Brion:

xxx xxx xxx

Q. So far, there are no other statements.

A. If there is none then, we will not submit any counter-affidavit because we believe there is nothing to rebut or countermand with all these statements.

Q. So, you are waiving your submission of counter-affidavit?

A. Yes, your honor, unless there are other witnesses who will come up soon. 3

Nonetheless, the head of the Panel of Prosecutors, respondent Jovencito Zuño, told Atty. Brion that he could still file a counter-affidavit up to August 27, 1993. No such counter-affidavit was filed.

During the hearing on August 1'3, 1993, respondent Zuño furnished the petitioner's counsel, this time Atty. Salvador Panelo, with copies of the sworn statements of Centeno and Malabanan, and told him he could submit counter-affidavits on or before August 27, 1993. The following exchange ensued:

ACSP Zuño:

For the record, we are furnishing to you the sworn statement of witness Aurelio Centeno y Roxas and

3

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

the sworn statement of SPO3 Vivencio Malabanan y Angeles.

Do I understand from you that you are again waiving the submission of counter-affidavit?

Atty. Panelo:

Yes.

ACSP Zuño:

So, insofar as the respondent, Mayor Antonio Sanchez is concerned, this case is submitted for resolution. 4

On the other hand, there is no support for the petitioner's subsequent manifestation that his counsel, Atty. Brion, was not notified of the inquest held on August 13, 1993, and that he was not furnished with the affidavits sworn to on that date by Vivencio Malabanan and Aurelio Centeno, or with their supplemental affidavits dated August 15, 1993. Moreover, the above-quoted excerpt shows that the petitioner's counsel at the hearing held on August 13, 1993, was not Atty. Brion but Atty. Panelo.

The petitioner was present at that hearing and he never disowned Atty. Panelo as his counsel. During the entire proceedings, he remained quiet and let this counsel speak and argue on his behalf. It was only in his tardy Reply that he has suddenly bestirred himself and would now question his representation by this lawyer as unauthorized and inofficious.

Section 3, Paragraph (d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, provides that if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or, if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits, the investigating officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant.

Just as the accused may renounce the right to be present at the preliminary investigation 5, so may he waive the right to present counter-affidavits or any other evidence in his defense.

At any rate, it is settled that the absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render the same defective and neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing the information. 6

If no preliminary investigation has been held, or if it is flawed, the trial court may, on motion of the accused, order an investigation or reinvestigation and hold the proceedings in the criminal case in abeyance. 7 In the case at bar, however, the respondent judge saw no reason or need for such a step. Finding no arbitrariness in her factual conclusions, we shall defer to her judgment.

Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman

Invoking the case of Deloso v. Domingo, 8 the petitioner submits that the proceedings conducted by the Department of Justice are null and void because it had no jurisdiction over the case. His claim is that it is the Office of the Ombudsman that is vested with the power to conduct the investigation of all cases involving public officers like him, as the municipal mayor of Calauan, Laguna.

The Ombudsman is indeed empowered under Section 15, paragraph (1) of R.A. 6770 to investigate and prosecute, any illegal act or omission of any public official. However, as we held only two years ago in the case of Aguinaldo v. Domagas, 9 this authority "is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority in. respect of the offense charged."

Petitioners finally assert that the information and amended information filed in this case needed the approval of the Ombudsman. It is not disputed that the information and amended information here did not have the approval of the Ombudsman. However, we do not believe that such approval was necessary at all. In Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA. 545 (1990), the Court held that the Ombudsman has authority to investigate charges of illegal or omissions on the part of any public official, i.e., any crime imputed to a public official. It must, however, be pointed out that the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate "any [illegal] act or omission of any public official" (191 SCRA at 550) is not an

exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense here charged, i.e., the crime of sedition. Thus, the non-involvement of the office of the Ombudsman in the present case does not have any adverse legal consequence upon the authority the panel of prosecutors to file and prosecute the information or amended information.

In fact, other investigatory agencies, of the government such as the Department of Justice, in connection with the charge of sedition, 10 and the Presidential Commission on Good Government, in ill-gotten wealth cases, 11 may conduct the investigation,

The Arrest

Was petitioner Sanchez arrested on August 13, 1993?

"Arrest" is defined under Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court as the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Under Section 2 of the same Rule, an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.

Application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not, required. It is enough that there be an intent on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and an intent onthe part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary. 12

The petitioner was taken to Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna, by virtue of a letter-invitation issued by PNP Commander Rex Piad requesting him to appear at the said camp for investigation.

In Babst v. National Intelligence Board 13 this Court declared:

Be that as it may, it is not idle to note that ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions, which the person invited may heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable. Under

4

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

certain circumstances, however, such an invitation can easily assume a different appearance. Thus, where the invitation comes from a powerful group composed predominantly of ranking military officers issued at a time when the country has just emerged from martial rule and when the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has not entirely been lifted, and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can be easily taken, not as a strictly voluntary invitation which it purports to be, but as an authoritative command which one can only defy at his peril. . . . (Emphasis supplied)

In the case at bar, the invitation came from a high-ranking military official and the investigation of Sanchez was to be made at a military camp. Although in the guise of a request, it was obviously a command or an order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly he expected to defy. In fact, apparently cowed by the "invitation," he went without protest (and in informal clothes and slippers only) with the officers who had come to fetch him.

It may not be amiss to observe that under R.A. No. 7438, the requisites of a "custodial investigation" are applicable even to a person not formally arrested but merely "invited" for questioning.

It should likewise be noted that at Camp Vicente Lim, the petitioner was placed on "arrest status" after he was pointed to by Centeno and Malabanan as the person who first raped Mary Eileen Sarmenta. Respondent Zuño himself acknowledged during the August 13, 1993 hearing that, on the basis of the sworn statements of the two state witnesses, petitioner had been "arrested."

We agree with the petitioner that his arrest did not come under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, providing as follows:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escapes from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

It is not denied that the arresting officers were not present when the petitioner allegedly participated in the killing of Allan Gomez and the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta. Neither did they have any personal knowledge that the petitioner was responsible therefor because the basis of the arrest was the sworn statements of Centeno and Malabanan. Moreover, as the rape and killing of Sarmenta allegedly took place on June 28-June 29, 1993, or forty-six days before the date of the arrest, it cannot be said that the offense had "in fact just been committed" when the petitioner was arrested.

The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the Regional Trial Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on August 26, 1993 against him and the other accused in connection with the rape-slay cases. It was belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal.

Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to quash the information, but only on that ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of that court. 14

The Court notes that on August 13, 1993, after the petitioner was unlawfully arrested, Judge Lanzanas issued a warrant of arrest against Antonio L. Sanchez in connection with Criminal Cases Nos. 93-124634 to 93-124637 for violation of R.A No. 6713. 15 Pending the

issuance of the warrant of arrest for the rape-slay cases, this first warrant served as the initial justification for his detention.

The Court also adverts to its uniform ruling that the filing of charges, and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to be released because of such defect. * Applicable by analogy to the case at bar is Rule 102 Section 4 of the Rules of Court that:

Sec, 4. When writ is not allowed or discharge authorized. — If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall, anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.

In one case, 16 the petitioner, sued on habeas corpus on the ground that she had been arrested by virtue of a John Doe warrant. In their return, the respondents declared that a new warrant specifically naming her had been issued, thus validating her detention. While frowning at the tactics of the respondents, the Court said:

The, case has, indeed, become moot and academic inasmuch as the new warrant of arrest complies with the requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Court regarding the particular description of the person to be arrested. While the first warrant was unquestionably void, being a general warrant, release of the petitioner for that reason will be a futile act as it will be followed by her immediate re-arrest pursuant to the new and valid warrant, returning her to the same prison she

5

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

will just have left. This Court will not participate in such a meaningless charade.

The same doctrine has been consistently followed by the Court, 17 more recently in the Umil case. 18

The Informations

The petitioner submits that the seven informations charging seven separate homicides are absurd because the two victims in these cases could not have died seven times.

This argument was correctly refuted by the Solicitor General in this wise:

Thus, 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.

In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of rape, loses its character as an independent offense, but assumes a new character, and functions like a qualifying circumstance. However,by fiction of law, it merged with rape to constitute an constituent element of a special complex crime of rape with homicide with a specific penalty which is in the highest degree, i.e. death (reduced to reclusion perpetua with the suspension of the application of the death penalty by the Constitution).

It is clearly provided in Rule 110 of the Rules of Court that:

Sec. 13. Duplicity of offense. A 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. In other words, the allegation of the prosecution is that the girl was raped seven times, with each of the seven accused taking turns in abusing her with the assistance of the other six. Afterwards, their lust satisfied, all seven of them decided to kill and thus silence Sarmenta.

Every one of the seven accused is being charged separately for actually raping Sarmenta and later killing her instead of merely assisting the petitioner in raping and then slaying her. 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.

The Alleged Discrimination

The charge of discrimination against the petitioner because of the non-inclusion of Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia in the informations must also be dismissed.

While the prosecuting officer is required by law to charge all those who in his opinion, appear to be guilty, he nevertheless cannot be compelled to include in the information a person against whom he believes no sufficient evidence of guilt exists. 19 The appreciation of the evidence involves the use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor, and we do not find in the case at bar a clear showing by the petitioner of a grave abuse of such discretion. 20

The decision of the prosecutor may be reversed or modified by the Secretary of Justice or in special cases by the President of the Philippines. 21 But even this Court cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case. The courts try and absolve or convict the accused but as a rule have no part in the initial decision to prosecute him.

The possible exception is where there is an unmistakable showing of a grave abuse of discretion that will justify judicial intrusion into the precincts of the executive. But in such a case the proper remedy to call for such exception is a petition for mandamus, not certiorari or prohibition. 22 Moreover, before resorting to this relief, the party seeking the inclusion of another person as a co-accused in the same case must first avail itself of other adequate remedies such as the filing of a motion for such inclusion. 23

At any rate, it is a preposterous contention that because no charges have been filed against Alqueza and Lavadia, the charges against the petitioner and his co-accused should also be dropped.

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

The petitioner argued earlier that since most of the accused were incumbent public officials or employees at the time of the alleged commission of the crimes, the cases against them should come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and not of the regular courts. This contention was withdrawn in his Reply but we shall discuss it just the same for the guidance of all those concerned.

Section 4, paragraph (a) of P.D. No, 1606, as amended by P.D. No.1861, provides:

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:

a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,

6

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code:

(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00. . . . (Emphasis supplied)

The crime of rape with homicide with which the petitioner stands charged obviously does not fall under paragraph (1), which deals with graft and corruption cases. Neither is it covered by paragraph (2) because it is not an offense committed in relation to the office of the petitioner.

In Montilla v, Hilario, 24 this Court described the "offense committed in relation to the office" as follows:

[T]he relation between the crime and the office contemplated by the Constitution is, in our opinion, direct and not accidental. To fall into the intent of the Constitution, the relation has to be such that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist without the office. In other words, the office must be a constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute, such as, for instance, the crimes defined and punished in Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven, of the Revised Penal Code.

Public office is not of the essence of murder. The taking of human life is either murder or homicide whether

done by a private citizen or public servant, and the penalty is the same except when the perpetrator. being a public functionary took advantage of his office, as alleged in this case, in which event the penalty is increased.

But the use or abuse of office does not adhere to the crime as an element; and even as an aggravating circumstance, its materiality arises not from the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that the criminals are public officials but from the manner of the commission of the crime

There is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and the petitioner's office as municipal mayor because public office is not an essential element of the crime charged. The offense can stand independently of the office. Moreover, it is not even alleged in the information that the commission of the crime charged was intimately connected with the performance of the petitioner's official functions to make it fall under the exception laid down in People v. Montejo. 25

In that case, a city mayor and several detectives were charged with murder for the death of a suspect as a result of a "third degree" investigation held at a police substation. The appearance of a senator as their counsel was questioned by the prosecution on the ground that he was inhibited by the Constitution from representing them because they were accused of an offense committed in relation to their office. The Court agreed. It held that even if their position was not an essential ingredient of the offense, there was nevertheless an intimate connection between the office and the offense, as alleged in the information, that brought it within the definition of an offense "committed in relation to the public office."

As Chief Justice Concepcion said:

It is apparent from these allegations that, although public office is not an element of the crime of murder in abstract, as committed by the main respondents herein, according to the amended information, the offense therein charged is intimately connected with their respective offices and was perpetrated while they were in the

performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions. Indeed they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices. The co-defendants of respondent Leroy S. Brown, obeyed his instructions because he was their superior officer, as Mayor of Basilan City. (Emphasis supplied).

We have read the informations in the case at bar and find no allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to the petitioner was connected with the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor or that there is an "intimate connection" between the offense and his office. It follows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan.

Conclusion

As above demonstrated, all of the grounds invoked by the petitioner are not supported by the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence. They must, therefore, all be rejected. In consequence, the respondent judge, who has started the trial of the criminal cases against the petitioner and his co-accused, may proceed therewith without further hindrance.

It remains to stress that the decision we make today is not a decision on the merits of the criminal cases being tried below. These will have to be decided by the respondent judge in accordance with the evidence that is still being received. At this time, there is yet no basis for judgment, only uninformed conjecture. The Court will caution against such irrelevant public speculations as they can be based only on imperfect knowledge if not officious ignorance.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The respondent judge is DIRECTED to continue with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 101141, 101142, 101143, 101144, 101145, 101146 and 101147 and to decide them with deliberate dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

7

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

LACSON VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY301 SCRA 298; G.R. NO. 12809620 JAN 1999]

Facts: Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies, were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery andIntelligence Task Group (ABRITG). Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors.

Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of the Criminal Investigation Command, that what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desiertoformed a panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation. However, a review board modified the panel’s finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including herein petitioner, charged as principal, and herein petitioner-intervenors, charged as accessories. After a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan, where petitioner was charged only as an accessory.

The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that under the amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. 7975. They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or ore of the “principal accused” are government officals with Salary Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. Thus, they did not qualify under said requisites. However, pending resolution of their motions, R.A. 8249 was approved amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of R.A. 7975.

Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, including Section 7 which provides that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof.

Issues: 

(1) Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate the petitioners’ right to due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution as the provisions seemed to have been introduced for the Sandiganbayan

to continue to acquire jurisdiction over the Kuratong Baleleng case.

(2) Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute.

(3) Whether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng was committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers which is essential to the determination whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayan’s or Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction.

RULING:Petitioner and intervenors’ posture that Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the law is too shallow to deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant such a declaration. Every classification made by the law is presumed reasonable and the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial distinction; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class; all of which are present in this case.

Paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply “to all cases involving” certain public officials and under the transitory provision in Section 7, to “all cases pending in any court.” Contrary to petitioner and intervenors’ argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in “any court.”

There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. Ex post facto law, generally, provides retroactive effect of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not apenal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. Not being a penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional.

In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it is

intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information which is essential in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. However, upon examination of the amended information, there was no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody. The stringent requirement that the charge set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was not established.

Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan.

G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999

PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner,

vs.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

ROMEO M. ACOP AND FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., petitioner-intervenors.

MARTINEZ, J.:

The constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8249 — an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan — is being challenged in this petition for prohibition and mandamus. Petitioner Panfilo Lacson, joined by petitioners-intervenors Romeo Acop

8

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

and Francisco Zubia, Jr., also seeks to prevent the Sandiganbayan from proceedings with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 (for multiple murder) against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The antecedents of this case, as gathered from the parties' pleadings and documentary proofs, are as follows:

In the early morning of May 18, 1995, eleven (11) persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, reportedly an organized crime syndicate which had been involved in a spate of bank robberies in Metro Manila, where slain along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG) headed by Chieff Superintendent Jewel Canson of the Philippine National Police (PNP). The ABRITG was composed of police officers from the Traffic Management Command (TMC) led by petitioner-intervenor Senior Superintendent Francisco Zubia, Jr.; Presidential Anti-Crime Commission — Task Force Habagat (PACC-TFH) headed by petitioner Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson; Central Police District Command (CPDC) led by Chief Superintendent Ricardo de Leon; and the Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) headed by petitioner-intervenor Chief Superintendent Romeo Acop.

Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of the CIC, that what actually transpired at dawn of May 18, 1995 was a summary execution (or a rub out) and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators headed by the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs, Bienvenido Blancaflor, to investigate the incident. This panel later absolved from any criminal liability all the PNP officers and personal allegedly involved in May 18, 1995 incident, with a finding that the said incident was a legitimate police operation. 1

However, a review board led by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa modified modified the Blancaflor panel's finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six (26) respondents, including herein petitioner and intervenors. The recommendation was approved by the Ombudsman except for the withdrawal of the charges against Chief Supt. Ricardo de Leon.

Thus, on November 2, 1995, petitioner Panfilo Lacson was among those charged as principal in eleven (11) information for murder 2 before the Sandiganbayan's

Second Division, while intervenors Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr. were among those charged in the same informations as accessories after-in-the-fact.

Upon motion by all the accused in the 11 information, 3

the Sandiganbayan allowed them to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's action. 4

After conducting a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed on March 1, 1996 eleven (11) amended informations 5

before the Sandiganbayan, wherein petitioner was charged only as an accessory, together with Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr. and other. One of the accused 6

was dropped from the case.

On March 5-6, 1996, all the accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that under the amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of Republic Act No. 7975. 7 They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or more of the "principal accused" are government officials with Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher, or PNP officials with the rank of Chief Superintendent (Brigadier General) or higher. The highest ranking principal accused in the amended informations has the rank of only a Chief Inspector, and none has the equivalent of at least SG 27.

Thereafter, in a Resolution 8 dated May 8, 1996 (promulgated on May 9, 1996), penned by Justice Demetriou, with Justices Lagman and de Leon concurring, and Justices Balajadia and Garchitorena dissenting, 9 the Sandiganbayan admitted the amended information and ordered the cases transferred to the Quezon City Regional Trial Court which has original and exclusive jurisdiction under R.A. 7975, as none of the principal accused has the rank of Chief Superintendent or higher.

On May 17, 1996, the Office of the Special Prosecutor moved for a reconsideration, insisting that the cases should remain with the Sandiganbayan. This was opposed by petitioner and some of the accused.

While these motions for reconsideration were pending resolution, and even before the issue of jurisdiction cropped up with the filing of the amended informations on March 1, 1996, House Bill No. 2299 10 and No. 1094 11

(sponsored by Representatives Edcel C. Lagman and Lagman and Neptali M. Gonzales II, respectively), as well as Senate Bill No. 844 12 (sponsored by Senator Neptali

Gonzales), were introduced in Congress, defining expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Specifically, the said bills sought, among others, to amend the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word "principal" from the phrase "principal accused" in Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of R.A. No. 7975.

These bills were consolidated and later approved into law as R.A. No. 8249 13 by the President of the Philippines on February 5, 1997.

Subsequently, on March 5, 1997, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution 14 denying the motion for reconsideration of the Special Prosecutor, ruling that it "stands pat in its resolution dated May 8, 1996."

On the same day 15 the Sandiganbayan issued and ADDENDUM to its March 5, 1997 Resolution, the pertinent portion of which reads:

After Justice Lagman wrote the Resolution and Justice Demetriou concurred in it, but before Justice de Leon. Jr. rendered his concurring and dissenting opinion, the legislature enacted Republic Act 8249 and the President of the Philippines approved it on February 5, 1997. Considering the pertinent provisions of the new law, Justices Lagman and Demetriou are now in favor of granting, as they are now granting, the Special Prosecutor's motion for reconsideration. Justice de Leon has already done so in his concurring and dissenting opinion.

xxx xxx xxx

Considering that three of the accused in each of these cases are PNP Chief Superintendents: namely, Jewel T. Canson, Romeo M. Acop and Panfilo M. Lacson, and that trial has not yet begun in all these cases — in fact, no order of arrest has been issued — this court has competence to take cognizance of these cases.

To recapitulate, the net result of all the foregoing is that by the vote of 3 of 2, the court admitted the Amended Informations in these cases by the

9

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

unanimous vote of 4 with 1 neither concurring not dissenting, retained jurisdiction to try and decide the cases 16 (Empahasis supplied)

Petitioner now questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249, including Section 7 thereof which provides that the said law "shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as to the approval hereof." Petitioner argues that:

a) The questioned provisions of the statute were introduced by the authors thereof in bad faith as it was made to precisely suit the situation in which petitioner's cases were in at the Sandiganbayan by restoring jurisdiction thereof to it, thereby violating his right to procedural due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Further, from the way the Sandiganbayan has foot-dragged for nine (9) months the resolution of a pending incident involving the transfer of the cases to the Regional Trial Court, the passage of the law may have been timed to overtake such resolution to render the issue therein moot, and frustrate the exercise of petitioner's vested rights under the old Sandiganbayan law (RA 7975)

b) Retroactive application of the law is plan from the fact that it was again made to suit the peculiar circumstances in which petitioner's cases were under, namely, that the trial had not yet commenced, as provided in Section 7, to make certain that those cases will no longer be remanded to the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, as the Sandiganbayan alone should try them, thus making it an ex post facto legislation and a denial of the right of petitioner as an accused in Criminal Case Nos. 23047-23057 to procedural due process.

c) The title of the law is misleading in that it contains the aforesaid "innocuous" provisions in Sections 4 and 7 which actually expands rather than defines the old Sandiganbayan

law (RA 7975), thereby violating the one-title one-subject requirement for the passage of statutes under Section 26 (1), Article VI of the Constitution. 17

For their part, the intervenors, in their petition-in-intervention, add that "while Republic Act No. 8249 innocuously appears to have merely expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the introduction of Section 4 and 7 in said statute impressed upon it the character of a class legislation and an ex-post facto statute intended to apply specifically to the accused in the Kuratong Baleleng case pending before the Sandiganbayan. 18 They further argued that if their case is tried before the Sandiganbayan their right to procedural due process would be violated as they could no longer avail of the two-tiered appeal to the Sandiganbayan, which they acquired under R.A. 7975, before recourse to the Supreme Court.

Both the Office of the Ombudsman and the Solicitor-General filed separate pleadings in support of the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the law in question and praying that both the petition and the petition-in-intervention be dismissed.

This Court then issued a Resolution 19 requiring the parties to file simultaneously within a nonextendible period of ten (10) days from notice thereof additional memoranda on the question of whether the subject amended informations filed a Criminal Case Nos. 23047-23057 sufficiently allege the commission by the accused therein of the crime charged within the meaning Section 4 b of Republic Act No. 8249, so as to bring the said cases within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

The parties, except for the Solicitor General who is representing the People of the Philippines, filed the required supplemental memorandum within the nonextendible reglementary period.

The established rule is that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one. 20 The burden of proving the invalidity of the law lies with those who challenge it. That burden, we regret to say, was not convincingly discharged in the present case.

The creation of the Sandiganbayn was mandated in Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law.

The said special court is retained in the new (1987) Constitution under the following provisions in Article XI, Section 4:

Sec. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

Pursuant to the constitutional mandate, Presidential Decree No. 1486 21 created the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, the following laws on the Sandiganbayan, in chronological order, were enacted: P.D. No. 1606, 22

Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 123, 23 P.D. No. 1860, 24 P.D. No. 1861, 25 R.A. No. 7975, 26 and R.A. No. 8249. 27

Under the latest amendments introduced by Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following cases:

Sec 4. Section 4 of the same decree [P.D. No. 1606, as amended] is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Titile VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying

10

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) 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 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippines National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of

senior superintendent or higher.

(f) City of provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

(2) Members of Congress or officials thereof classified as-Grade "27" and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection a of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and connection with

Executive Orders Nos. 1,2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their jurisdictions as privided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions of 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.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through

11

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 4-A, issued in 1986.

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employee, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 8249 states:

Sec. 7. Transitory provision — This act shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. (Emphasis supplied)

The Sandiganbayan law prior to R.A. 8249 was R.A. 7975. Section 2 of R.A. 7975 provides:

Sec. 2. Section 4 of the same decree [Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended) is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Sec 4. Jurisdiction — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the pricipal accused are afficials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) 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 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineer, and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the

Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

(2) Members of Congress or officials thereof classified as Grade "27" and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection a of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases files pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 4-A.

In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade "27" or higher, as presribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,

12

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appelas from the final judgment, resolutions or orders of regular court where all the accused are occupying positions lower than grade "27," or not otherwise covered by the preceding enumeration.

xxx xxx xxx

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall have exclusive jurisdiction over them.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 7975 reads:

Sec. 7. Upon the effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases in which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper courts.

Under paragraphs a and c, Section 4 of R.A. 8249, the word "principal" before the word "accused" appearing in the above-quoted Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of R.A. 7975, was deleted. It is due to this deletion of the word "principal" that the parties herein are at loggerheads over the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner and intervenors, relying on R.A. 7975, argue that the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases since none of the principal accused under the amended information has the rank of Superintendent 28 or higher. On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special Prosecutor who is tasked to represent the People before the Supreme Court except in certain cases, 29 contends that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction pursuant to R.A. 8249.

A perusal of the aforequoted Section 4 of R.A. 8249 reveals that to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery), 30 (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A, issued in 1986 (sequestration cases), 31 or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender comitting the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employee 32 holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.

Considering that herein petitioner and intervenors are being charged with murder which is a felony punishable under Title VIII of the Revised Penal Code, the governing on the jurisdictional offense is not paragraph a but paragraph b, Section 4 of R.A. 8249. This paragraph b pertains to "other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of (Section 4, R.A. 8249) in relation to their office. "The phrase" other offenses or felonies" is too broad as to include the crime of murder, provided it was committed in relation to the accused's officials functions. Thus, under said paragraph b, what determines the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender — that is, whether he is one of those public officers or employees enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4. The offenses mentioned in pargraphs a, b and c of the same Section 4 do not make any reference to the criminal participation of the accused public officer as to whether he is charged as a principal, accomplice or accessory. In enacting R.A. 8249, the Congress simply restored the original provisions of P.D. 1606 which does not mention the criminal participation of the public officer as a requisite to determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner and entervenors' posture that Section 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the law 33 because its enactment was particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases in the Sandiganbayan, is a contention too shallow to deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant a declaration of an act of the entire Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of the co-equal executive department as unconstitutional. Every classification made by law is presumed reasonable. Thus, the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. 34

It is an established precept in constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when there is concurrence of four elements, namely:

(1) it must rest on substantial distinction;

(2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law;

(3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and

(4) must apply equaly to all members of the same class, 35

all of which are present in this case.

The challengers of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality and reasonables of the questioned provisions. The classification between those pending cases involving the concerned public officials whose trial has not yet commence and whose cases could have been affected by the amendments of the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under R.A. 8249, as against those cases where trial had already started as of the approval of the law, rests on substantial distinction that makes real differences. 36 In the first instance, evidence against them were not yet presented, whereas in the latter the parties had already submitted their respective proofs, examined witnesses and presented documents. Since it is within the power of Congress to define the jurisdiction of courts subject to the constitutional limitations, 37 it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of that jurisdiction would necessarily affect pending cases, which is why it has to privide for a remedy in the form of a transitory provision. Thus, petitioner and intervenors cannot now claim that Sections 4 and 7 placed them under a different category from those similarly situated as them. Precisely, paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply to "all case involving" certain public officials and, under the transitory provision in Section 7, to "all cases pending in any court." Contrary to petitioner and intervenors' argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in "any court." It just happened that Kuratong Baleleng cases are one of those affected by the law.

13

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Moreover, those cases where trial had already begun are not affected by the transitory provision under Section 7 of the new law (R.A. 8249).

In their futile attempt to have said sections nullified, heavy reliance is premised on what is perceived as bad faith on the part of a Senator and two Justices of the Sandiganbaya 38 for their participation in the passage of the said provisions. In particular, it is stressed that the Senator had expressed strong sentiments against those officials involved in the Kuratong Baleleng cases during the hearings conducted on the matter by the committee headed by the Senator. Petitioner further contends that the legislature is biased against him as he claims to have been selected from among the 67 million other Filipinos as the object of the deletion of the word "principal" in paragraph a, Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended, and of the transitory provision of R.A. 8249. 39 R.A 8249, while still a bill, was acted, deliberated, considered by 23 other Senators and by about 250 Representatives, and was separately approved by the Senate and House of Representatives and, finally, by the President of the Philippines.

On the perceived bias that the Sandiganbayan Justices allegedly had against petitioner during the committe hearings, the same would not constitute sufficient justification to nullify an otherwise valid law. Their presence and participation in the legislative hearings was deemed necessary by Congress since the matter before the committee involves the graft court of which one is the head of the Sandiganbayan and the other a member thereof. The Congress, in its plenary legislative powers, is particularly empowered by the Constitution to invite persons to appear before it whenever it decides to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. 40

Petitioner and entervenors further further argued that the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 to the Kuratong Baleleng cases constitutes an ex post facto law 41 for they are deprived of their right to procedural due process as they can no longer avail of the two-tiered appeal which they had allegedly acquired under R.A. 7975.

Again, this contention is erroneous. There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. In Calder v. Bull, 42 an ex post facto law is one —

(a) which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when

committed, and punishes such action; or

(b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; or

(c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed.

(d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and recieves less or different testimony that the law required at the time of the commission of the offense on order to convict the defendant. 43

(e) Every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage. 44

This Court added two more to the list, namely:

(f) that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful;

(g) deprives a person accussed of crime of some lawful

protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of a amnesty. 45

Ex post facto law, generally, prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. 46 R.A. 8249 is not penal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations; 47 or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide dor their punishment. 48 R.A 7975, which amended P.D. 1606 as regards the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, i.e. one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. 49 Not being a penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional.

Petitioner's and entervenors' contention that their right to a two-tiered appeal which they acquired under R.A. 7975 has been diluted by the enactment of R.A. 8249, is incorrect. The same contention has already been rejected by the court several times 50 considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. The mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right of appeal is not included in the prohibition against ex post facto laws. 51

R.A. 8249 pertains only to matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the nature of an ex post facto law. It does not mete out a penalty and, therefore, does not come within the prohibition. 52 Moreover, the law did not alter the rules of evidence or the mode of trial. 53 It has been ruled that adjective statutes may be made applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. 54

In any case; R.A. 8249 has preserved the accused's right to appeal to the Supreme Court to review questions of law. 55 On the removal of the intermediate review of facts, the Supreme Court still has the power of review to determine if he presumption of innocence has been convincing overcome. 56

Another point. The challenged law does not violate the one-title-one-subject provision of the Constitution. Much emphasis is placed on the wording in the title of the law

14

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

that it "defines" the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction when what it allegedly does is to "expand" its jurisdiction. The expantion in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, if it can be considered as such, does not have to be expressly stated in the title of the law because such is the necessary consequence of the amendments. The requirement that every bill must only have one subject expressed in the title 57 is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough, as in this case, to include subjects related to the general purpose which the statute seeks to achieve. 58 Such rule is liberally interpreted and should be given a practical rather than a technical construction. There is here sufficient compliance with such requirement, since the title of R.A. 8249 expresses the general subject (involving the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the amendment of P.D. 1606, as amended) and all the provisions of the law are germane to that general subject. 59 The Congress, in employing the word "define" in the title of the law, acted within its power since Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution itself empowers the legislative body to "define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. 60

There being no unconstitutional infirmity in both the subject amendatory provision of Section 4 and the retroactive procedural application of the law as provided in Section 7 of R.A. No. 8249, we shall now determine whether under the allegations in the Informations, it is the Sandiganbayan or Regional Trial Court which has jurisdictions over the multiple murder case against herein petitioner and entervenors.

The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution or statute. The elements of that definition must appear in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over a case. Hence the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or informations, 61 and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial. 62

As stated earlier, the multiple murder charge against petitioner and intervenors falls under Section 4 [paragraph b] of R.A. 8249. Section 4 requires that the offense charged must be committed by the offender in relation to his office in order for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over it. 63 This jurisdictional requirement is in accordance with Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution which mandated that the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over criminal cases committed by the public officers and employees, including those in goverment-owned or controlled corporations, "in relation to their office as may be determined by law." This constitutional mandate was reiterated in the new (1987) Constitution when it declared in Section 4 thereof that

the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

The remaining question to be resolved then is whether the offense of multiple murder was committed in relation to the office of the accussed PNP officers.

In People vs. Montejo, 64 we held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it (the offense) is "intimately connected" with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. 65 This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties "must be alleged in the informations." 66

As to how the offense charged be stated in the informations, Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates:

Sec. 9 Couse of accusation — The acts or omissions complied of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition not necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense, but in such from as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. (Emphasis supplied)

As early as 1954 we pronounced that "the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts." 67 The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the informations nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. 68

The noble object or written accusations cannot be overemphasized. This was explained in U.S. v. Karelsen: 69

The object of this written accusations was — First; To furnish the accused with such a descretion of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense and second to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for

protection against a further prosecution for the same cause and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction if one should be had. In order that the requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularly of time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant) and circumstances. In short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged. (Emphasis supplied)

It is essential, therefore, that the accused be informed of the facts that are imputed to him as "he is presumed to have no indefendent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense." 70

Applying these legal principles and doctrines to the present case, we find the amended informations for murder against herein petitioner and intervenors wanting of specific factual averments to show the intimate relation/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official function of the offenders.

In the present case, one of the eleven (11) amended informations 71 for murder reads:

AMENDED INFORMATIONS

The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer III. Office of the Ombudsman hereby accuses CHIEF INSP. MICHAEL RAY AQUINO, CHIEF INSP. ERWIN T. VILLACORTE, SENIOR INSP. JOSELITO T. ESQUIVEL, INSP. RICARDO G. DANDAN, SPO4 VICENTE P. ARNADO, SPO4 ROBERTO F. LANGCAUON, SPO2 VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, SPO2 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, SPO1 WILFREDO C. CUARTERO, SPO1 ROBERTO O. AGBALOG, SPO1 OSMUNDO B. CARINO, CHIEF SUPT. JEWEL F. CANSON, CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO M. ACOP, CHIEF SUPT. PANFILO M. LACSON, SENIOR SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA JR., SUPT. ALMARIO A. HILARIO, CHIEF INSP.

15

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CESAR O. MANCAO III, CHIEF INSP. GIL L. MENESES, SENIOR INSP. GLENN DUMLAO, SENIOR INSP. ROLANDO ANDUYAN, INSP. CEASAR TANNAGAN, SPO3 WILLY NUAS, SPO3 CICERO S. BACOLOD, SPO2 NORBERTO LASAGA, PO2 LEONARDO GLORIA, and PO2 ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG of the crime of Murder as defined and penalize under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code committed as follows

That on or about May 18, 1995 in Mariano Marcos Avenue, Quezon City Philippines and within the jurisdiction of his Honorable Court, the accused CHIEF INSP. MICHAEL RAY AQUINO, CHIEF INSP. ERWIN T. VILLACORTE, SENIOR INSP. JOSELITO T. ESQUIVEL, INSP. RICARDO G. DANDAN, SPO4 VICENTE ARNADO, SPO4 ROBERTO F. LANGCAUON, SPO2 VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, SPO2 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, SPO1 WILFREDO C. CUARTERO, SPO1 ROBERTO O. AGBALOG, and SPO1 OSMUNDO B. CARINO, all taking advantage of their public and official positions as officers and members of the Philippine National Police and committing the acts herein alleged in relation to their public office, conspiring with intent to kill and using firearms with treachery evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior strenghts did then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously shoot JOEL AMORA, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused his instantaneous death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.

That accused CHIEF SUPT. JEWEL F. CANSON, CHIEF SUPT. ROMOE M. ACOP, CHIEF SUPT. PANFILO M. LACSON, SENIOR SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIAM JR., SUPT. ALMARIO A. HILARIO, CHIEF INSP. CESAR O. MANCAO II, CHIEF INSP. GIL L. MENESES, SENIOR INSP. GLENN DUMLAO, SENIOR INSP. ROLANDO ANDUYAN, INSP. CEASAR TANNAGAN, SPO3 WILLY NUAS, SPO3 CICERO S. BACOLOD, PO2 ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG committing the acts in

relation to office as officers and members of the Philippine National Police are charged herein as accessories after-the-fact for concealing the crime herein above alleged by among others falsely representing that there where no arrest made during the read conducted by the accused herein at Superville Subdivision, Paranaque, Metro Manila on or about the early dawn of May 18, 1995.

CONTRARY LAW.

While the above-quoted information states that the above-named principal accused committed the crime of murder "in relation to thier public office, there is, however, no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody.

Even the allegations concerning the criminal participation of herein petitioner and intevenors as among the accessories after-the-facts, the amended information is vague on this. It is alleged therein that the said accessories concelead "the crime herein-above alleged by, among others, falsely representing that there were no arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused herein at Superville Subdivision, Paranaque Metro Manila, on or about the early dawn of May 18, 1995." The sudden mention of the "arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused" surprises the reader. There is no indication in the amended information that the victim was one of those arrested by the accused during the "raid." Worse, the raid and arrests were allegedly conducted "at Superville Subdivision, Paranaque, Metro Manila" but, as alleged in the immediately preceding paragraph of the amended information, the shooting of the victim by the principal accused occurred in Mariano Marcos Avenue, Quezon City." How the raid, arrests and shooting happened in the two places far away from each other is puzzling. Again, while there is the allegation in the amended information that the said accessories committed the offense "in relation to office as officers and members of the (PNP)," we, however, do not see the intimate connection between the offense charged and the accused's official functions, which, as earlier discussed, is an essential

element in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth with such particularly as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was, sad to say, not satisfied. We believe that the mere allegation in the amended information that the offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a conclusion between of law, not a factual avernment that would show the close intimacy between the offense charged and the discharge of the accused's official duties.

In People vs. Magallanes, 72 where the jurisdiction between the Regional Trial Court and the Sandiganbayan was at issue, we ruled:

It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information and not by the result of evidence after trial.

In (People vs) Montejo (108 Phil 613 (1960), where the amended information alleged

Leroy S. Brown City Mayor of Basilan City, as such, has organized groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes consisting of regular policeman and . . . special policemen appointed and provided by him with pistols and higher power guns and then established a camp . . . at Tipo-tipo which is under his command . . . supervision and control where his co-defendants were stationed entertained criminal complaints and conducted the corresponding investigations as well

16

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

as assumed the authority to arrest and detain person without due process of law and without bringing them to the proper court, and that in line with this set-up established by said Mayor of Basilan City as such, and acting upon his orders his co-defendants arrested and maltreated Awalin Tebag who denied in consequence thereof.

we held that the offense charged was committed in relation to the office of the accused because it was perpetreated while they were in the performance, though improper or irregular of their official functions and would not have been committed had they not held their office, besides, the accused had no personal motive in committing the crime thus, there was an intimate connection between the offense and the office of the accused.

Unlike in Montejo the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 15562 and 15563 in the court below do not indicate that the accused arrested and investigated the victims and then killed the latter in the course of the investigation. The informations merely allege that the accused for the purpose of extracting or extortin the sum of P353,000.00 abducted, kidnapped and detained the two victims, and failing in their common purpose they shot; and killed the said victims. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is these allegations that shall control, and not the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial.

In the aforecited case of People vs. Montejo, it is noteworthy that the phrase committed in relation to public office "does not appear in the information, which only signifies that the said phrase 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, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.

Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, 73 not the Sandiganbayan.

WHEREFORE, the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 is hereby sustained. The Addendum to the March 5, 1997 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is REVERSED. The Sandiganbayan is hereby directed to transfer Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to 23057 (for multiple murder) to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which has exclusive original jurisdiction over the said cases.1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

CORPUZ vs. TANODBAYAN149 SCRA 281

Facts: 

Petitioners were members of the Citizens Election Committee of Caba, La Union in the January 30, 1980 elections; petitioner Epifanio Castillejos was Director of the Bureau of Domestic Trade and petitioner Edgar Castillejos was then a candidate and later elected mayor in the same election.  Private respondent Esteban Mangaser, an independent candidate for vice-mayor of the same municipality sent a letter to President Marcos charging the petitioners with violation of the 1978 Election Code, specifically for electioneering and / or campaigning inside the voting centers during the election.  Regional Election Director of San Fernando, La Union, conducted a formal investigation and on September 29, 1981, submitted its report recommending to the Comelec the dismissal of the complaint.  Private respondent Mangaser formally withdrew his charges filed with the Comelec stating his intention to refile it with the Tanodbayan. On November 26, 1981 the Comelec dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

Subsequently the assistant provincial fiscal started a preliminary investigation of a complaint filed by

Mangaser with the Tanodbayan against the same parties and on the same charges previously dismissed by the Comelec.  The Tanodbayan asserted exclusive authority to prosecute the case, stated in a letter to the Comelec Chairman that a lawyer of the Comelec if not properly deputized as a Tanodbayan prosecutor has not authority to conduct preliminary investigation s and prosecute offenses committed by Comelec officials in relation to their office.

Issue: Whether or not the Tanodbayan has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses.

Held: 

Comelec, not the Tanodbayan, or Sandiganbayan, has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses committed by a private individual or public officer or employee.  Nature of the offense, not the personality of the offender, is important. 

G.R. No. L-62075 April 15, 1987

NATIVIDAD CORPUS, AURORA FONBUENA, JOSIE PERALTA, CRESENCIA PADUA, DOMINADOR BAUTISTA, LEOLA NEOG, EPIFANIO CASTILLEJOS AND EDGAR CASTILLEJOS, petitioners, vs.TANODBAYAN OF THE PHILIPPINES, FISCAL JUAN L. VILLANUEVA, JR., AND ESTEBAN MANGASER, respondents.

Simplicio M. Sevilleja for respondent E. Mangaser.

R E S O L U T I O N

CORTES, J.:

Petitioners Natividad Corpuz, Aurora Fonbuena, Josie Peralta, Cresencia Padua, Dominador Bautista and Leola Neog were members of the Citizens Election Committee of Caba, La Union in the January 30, 1980 elections; petitioner Epifanio Castillejos was Director of the Bureau of Domestic Trade and petitioner Edgar Castillejos was then a candidate and later elected mayor in the same election. Private respondent Esteban Mangaser, an independent candidate for vice. mayor of the same

17

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

municipality sent a letter to President Ferdinand E. Marcos charging the petitioners with violation of the 1978 Election Code, specifically for electioneering and/or campaigning inside the voting centers during the election. On instruction from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) the Regional Election Director of San Fernando, La Union, conducted a formal investigation and on September 29, 1981 submitted its report recommending to the COMELEC the dismissal of the complaint. On October 29, 1981, private respondent Mangaser formally withdrew his charges filed with the COMELEC stating his intention to refile it with the Tanodbayan. On November 26, 1981 the COMELEC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

Subsequently the assistant provincial fiscal started a preliminary investigation of a complaint filed by Mangaser with the Tanodbayan against the same parties and on the same charges previously dismissed by the COMELEC. The COMELEC Legal Assistance Office entered its appearance for the respondents (except Director Epifanio Castillejos and Edgar Castillejos) and moved for dismissal of the complaint. The motion was denied. The TANODBAYAN asserting exclusive authority to prosecute the case, stated in a letter to the COMELEC Chairman that a lawyer of the COMELEC if not properly deputized as a Tanodbayan prosecutor has no authority to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute offenses committed by COMELEC officials in relation to their office. (Rollo, p. 102) A motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition for certiorari and preliminary injunction. This Court after considering the pleadings filed and deliberating on the issues raised considered the comment of the Solicitor General an Answer to the petition and considered the case submitted for decision.

In the landmark case of the De Jesus v. People (No. L-61998, February 28, 1983, 120 SCRA 760) this Court dealt with the following question of first impression relative to the rival claim of jurisdiction over election offenses committed by public officials:

Which of these entities have the power to investigate, prosecute and try election offenses committed by a public officer in relation to his office — the Commission on Elections and the Court of First Instance (now the regional trial court) or the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan?

This Court rejected the assertion that no tribunal other than the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses

committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, thus:

The grant to the COMELEC of the power, among others, to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election and the concomittant authority to investigate and prosecute election offenses is not without compelling reason. The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would result in the frustration of the true will of the people and make a mere Idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office would thus seriously impair its effectiveness in achieving this clear constitutional mandate.

From a careful scrutiny of the constitutional provisions relied upon by the Sandiganbayan, We perceived neither explicit nor implicit grant to it and its prosecuting arm, the Tanodbayan, of the authority to investigate, prosecute and hear election offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office as contradistinguished from the clear and categorical bestowal of said authority and jurisdiction upon the COMELEC and the courts of first instance under Sections 182 and 184, respectively, of the Election Code of 1978.

An examination of the provisions of the Constitution and the Election Code of 1978 reveals the clear intention to place in the COMELEC exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses committed by any person, whether private individual or public officer or employee, and in the latter instance, irrespective of whether the offense is committed in relation to his official duties or not. In other words, it is the nature of the offense and not the personality of the offender that matters. As long as the offense is an election offense jurisdiction over the same rests exclusively with the COMELEC, in view of its all-embracing power over the conduct of elections.

WHEREFORE, inasmuch as the charge of electioneering filed against the petitioners had already been dismissed by the COMELEC for insufficiency of evidence, the petition is hereby granted and the complaint filed by private respondent being investigated anew by the Tanodbayan charging the petitioners with the same election offense, DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

AZARCON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts: Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling dirt and ore. His services were contracted by PICOP. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the former’s premises. 

On May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by BIR commanding one of its Regional Directors to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and other personal property of Jaime Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused Azarcon and a delinquent taxpayer. A Warrant of Garnishment was issued to and subsequently signed by accused Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit to BIR the property in his possession owned by Ancla. Azarcon then volunteered himself to act as custodian of the truck owned by Ancla. 

After some time, Azarcon wrote a letter to the Reg. Dir of BIR stating that while he had made representations to retain possession of the property of Ancla, he thereby relinquishes whatever responsibility he had over the said property since Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from him. In his reply, the BIR Reg. Dir. said that Azarcon’s failure to comply with the provisions of the warrant did not relieve him from his responsibility. 

Along with his co-accused, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of malversation of public funds or property. On March 8, 1994, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 10 yrs and 1 day of prision mayor in its maximum period to 17 yrs, 4 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Petitioner filed a motion for new trial which was

18

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

subsequently denied by Sandiganbayan. Hence, this petition. 

Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual designated by BIR as a custodian of distrained property. 

Held: SC held that the Sandiganbayan’s decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction. 

Sec. 4 of PD 1606 provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It was specified therein that the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual is when the complaint charges the private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction. 

The Information does no charge petitioner Azarcon of becoming a co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Thus, unless the petitioner be proven a public officer, Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged. 

Art. 203 of the RPC determines who public officers are. Granting that the petitioner, in signing the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity constituting public functions, he obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. Neither was he appointed by direct provision of law nor by competent authority. While BIR had authority to require Azarcon to sign a receipt for the distrained truck, the National Internal Revenue Code did not grant it power to appoint Azarcon a public officer. The BIR’s power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public officer. Thus, Azarcon is not a public officer. 

[G.R. No. 116033. February 26, 1997]

ALFREDO L. AZARCON, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSE C. BATAUSA, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a private individual who is charged with malversation of public

funds as a principal after the said individual had been designated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as a custodian of distrained property? Did such accused become a public officer and therefore subject to the graft court’s jurisdiction as a consequence of such designation by the BIR?

These are the main questions in the instant petition for review of respondent Sandiganbayan’s Decisioni[1] in Criminal Case No. 14260 promulgated on March 8, 1994, convicting petitioner of malversation of public funds and property, and Resolutionii[2] dated June 20, 1994, denying his motion for new trial or reconsideration thereof.

The Facts

Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling “dirt and ore.”iii[3] His services were contracted by the Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) at its concession in Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the former’s premises.iv[4] From this set of circumstances arose the present controversy.

“x x x It appears that on May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by the Main Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) addressed to the Regional Director (Jose Batausa) or his authorized representative of Revenue Region 10, Butuan City commanding the latter to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and other personal property of Jaime Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused Azarcon and, a delinquent taxpayer. The Warrant of Garnishment was issued to accused Alfredo Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit to BIR the property in his possession owned by taxpayer Ancla. The Warrant of Garnishment was received by accused Azarcon on June 17, 1985.”v[5]

Petitioner Azarcon, in signing the “Receipt for Goods, Articles, and Things Seized Under Authority of the National Internal Revenue,” assumed the undertakings specified in the receipt the contents of which are reproduced as follows:

“(I), the undersigned, hereby acknowledge to have received from Amadeo V. San Diego, an Internal Revenue Officer, Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Philippines, the following described goods, articles, and things:

Kind of property --- Isuzu dump truckMotor number --- E120-229598Chassis No. --- SPZU50-1772440Number of CXL --- 6Color --- BlueOwned By --- Mr. Jaime Ancla

the same having been this day seized and left in (my) possession pending investigation by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative. (I) further promise that (I) will faithfully keep, preserve, and, to the best of (my) ability, protect said goods, articles, and things seized from defacement, demarcation, leakage, loss, or destruction in any manner; that (I) will neither alter nor remove, nor permit others to alter or remove or dispose of the same in any manner without the express authority of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and that (I) will produce and deliver all of said goods, articles, and things upon the order of any court of the Philippines, or upon demand of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or any authorized officer or agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.”vi[6]

Subsequently, Alfredo Azarcon wrote a letter dated November 21, 1985 to the BIR’s Regional Director for Revenue Region 10 B, Butuan City stating that

“x x x while I have made representations to retain possession of the property and signed a receipt of the same, it appears now that Mr. Jaime Ancla intends to cease his operations with us. This is evidenced by the fact that sometime in August, 1985 he surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from my custody. x x x In this connection, may I therefore formally inform you that it is my desire to immediately relinquish whatever responsibilities I have over the above-mentioned property by virtue of the receipt I have signed. This cancellation shall take effect immediately. x x x .”vii[7]

Incidentally, the petitioner reported the taking of the truck to the security manager of PICOP, Mr. Delfin Panelo, and requested him to prevent this truck from being taken out of the PICOP concession. By the time the order to bar the truck’s exit was given, however, it was too late.viii[8]

Regional Director Batausa responded in a letter dated May 27, 1986, to wit:

“An analysis of the documents executed by you reveals that while you are (sic) in possession of the dump truck owned by JAIME ANCLA, you voluntarily assumed the liabilities of safekeeping and preserving the unit in behalf

19

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. This is clearly indicated in the provisions of the Warrant of Garnishment which you have signed, obliged and committed to surrender and transfer to this office. Your failure therefore, to observe said provisions does not relieve you of your responsibility.”ix[9]

Thereafter, the Sandiganbayan found that

“On 11 June 1986, Mrs. Marilyn T. Calo, Revenue Document Processor of Revenue Region 10 B, Butuan City, sent a progress report to the Chief of the Collection Branch of the surreptitious taking of the dump truck and that Ancla was renting out the truck to a certain contractor by the name of Oscar Cueva at PICOP (Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, the same company which engaged petitioner’s earth moving services), Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur. She also suggested that if the report were true, a warrant of garnishment be reissued against Mr. Cueva for whatever amount of rental is due from Ancla until such time as the latter’s tax liabilities shall be deemed satisfied. x x x However, instead of doing so, Director Batausa filed a letter-complaint against the (herein Petitioner) and Ancla on 22 January 1988, or after more than one year had elapsed from the time of Mrs. Calo’s report.”x[10]

Provincial Fiscal Pretextato Montenegro “forwarded the records of the complaint x x x to the Office of the Tanodbayan” on May 18, 1988. He was deputized Tanodbayan prosecutor and granted authority to conduct preliminary investigation on August 22, 1988, in a letter by Special Prosecutor Raul Gonzales approved by Ombudsman (Tanodbayan) Conrado Vasquez.xi[11]

Along with his co-accused Jaime Ancla, petitioner Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of malversation of public funds or property under Article 217 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in the following Informationxii[12]filed on January 12, 1990, by Special Prosecution Officer Victor Pascual:

“That on or about June 17, 1985, in the Municipality of Bislig, Province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Alfredo L. Azarcon, a private individual but who, in his capacity as depository/administrator of property seized or deposited by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, having voluntarily offered himself to act as custodian of one Isuzu Dumptruck (sic) with Motor No. E120-22958, Chasis No. SPZU 50-1772440, and number CXL-6 and was authorized to be such under the authority of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, has become a responsible

and accountable officer and said motor vehicle having been seized from Jaime C. Ancla in satisfaction of his tax liability in the total sum of EIGHTY THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY ONE PESOS and 59/100 (P80,831.59) became a public property and the value thereof as public fund, with grave abuse of confidence and conspiring and confederating with said Jaime C. Ancla, likewise, a private individual, did then and there wilfully, (sic) unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to his personal use and benefit the aforementioned motor vehicle or the value thereof in the aforestated amount, by then and there allowing accused Jaime C. Ancla to remove, retrieve, withdraw and tow away the said Isuzu Dumptruck (sic) with the authority, consent and knowledge of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Butuan City, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the amount of P80,831.59 in a form of unsatisfied tax liability.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

The petitioner filed a motion for reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan on May 14, 1991, alleging that: (1) the petitioner never appeared in the preliminary investigation; and (2) the petitioner was not a public officer, hence a doubt exists as to why he was being charged with malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.xiii[13] The Sandiganbayan granted the motion for reinvestigation on May 22, 1991.xiv[14] After the reinvestigation, Special Prosecution Officer Roger Berbano, Sr., recommended the “withdrawal of the information”xv[15] but was “overruled by the Ombudsman.”xvi[16]

A motion to dismiss was filed by petitioner on March 25, 1992 on the ground that the Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner since he was not a public officer.xvii[17] On May 18, 1992, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion.xviii[18]

When the prosecution finished presenting its evidence, the petitioner then filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence which was denied on November 16, 1992, “for being without merit.”xix[19] The petitioner then commenced and finished presenting his evidence on February 15, 1993.

The Respondent Court’s Decision

On March 8, 1994, respondent Sandiganbayanxx[20] rendered a Decision,xxi[21] the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Alfredo Azarcon y Leva GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of Malversation of Public Funds defined and penalized under Article 217 in relation to Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in view of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its maximum period to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal. To indemnify the Bureau of Internal Revenue the amount of P80,831.59; to pay a fine in the same amount without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to suffer special perpetual disqualification; and, to pay the costs.

Considering that accused Jaime Ancla has not yet been brought within the jurisdiction of this Court up to this date, let this case be archived as against him without prejudice to its revival in the event of his arrest or voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of this Court.

SO ORDERED.”

Petitioner, through new counsel,xxii[22] filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration on March 23, 1994, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolutionxxiii[23] dated December 2, 1994.

Hence, this petition.

The Issues

The petitioner submits the following reasons for the reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s assailed Decision and Resolution:

“I. The Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed solely by private individuals.

II. In any event, even assuming arguendo that the appointment of a private individual as a custodian or a depositary of distrained property is sufficient to convert such individual into a public officer, the petitioner cannot still be considered a public officer because:

[A]

20

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

There is no provision in the National Internal Revenue Code which authorizes the Bureau of Internal Revenue to constitute private individuals as depositaries of distrained properties.

[B]

His appointment as a depositary was not by virtue of a direct provision of law, or by election or by appointment by a competent authority.

III. No proof was presented during trial to prove that the distrained vehicle was actually owned by the accused Jaime Ancla; consequently, the government’s right to the subject property has not been established.

IV. The procedure provided for in the National Internal Revenue Code concerning the disposition of distrained property was not followed by the B.I.R., hence the distraint of personal property belonging to Jaime C. Ancla and found allegedly to be in the possession of the petitioner is therefore invalid.

V. The B.I.R. has only itself to blame for not promptly selling the distrained property of accused Jaime C. Ancla in order to realize the amount of back taxes owed by Jaime C. Ancla to the Bureau.”xxiv[24]

In fine, the fundamental issue is whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy. Corollary to this is the question of whether petitioner can be considered a public officer by reason of his being designated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as a depositary of distrained property.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

It is hornbook doctrine that in order “(to) ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the provisions of the law should be inquired into.”xxv[25] Furthermore, “the jurisdiction of the court must appear clearly from the statute law or it will not be held to exist. It cannot be presumed or implied.”xxvi[26] And for this purpose in criminal cases, “the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law at the time of commencement of the action.”xxvii[27]

In this case, the action was instituted with the filing of this information on January 12, 1990; hence, the applicable statutory provisions are those of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861 on March 23, 1983, but prior to their amendment by R.A. No. 7975 on May 16, 1995. At that time, Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 provided that:

“SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;

(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

x x x x x x x x x

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees.

x x x x x x x x x.”

The foregoing provisions unequivocally specify the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual, i.e. when the complaint charges the private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction.

Azarcon: A Public Officer or A Private Individual?

The Information does not charge petitioner Azarcon of being a co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Thus, unless petitioner be proven a public officer, the Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged. Article 203 of the RPC determines who are public officers:

“Who are public officers. -- For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of the book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer.”

Thus,

“(to) be a public officer, one must be --

(1) Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, or

Performing in said Government or any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and

(2) That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be --

a. by direct provision of the law, or

b. by popular election, or

c. by appointment by competent authority.”xxviii[28]

Granting arguendo that the petitioner, in signing the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity constituting public functions, he obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. The next logical query is whether petitioner’s designation by the BIR as a custodian of distrained property qualifies as appointment by direct provision of law, or by competent authority.xxix[29] We answer in the negative.

21

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The Solicitor General contends that the BIR, in effecting constructive distraint over the truck allegedly owned by Jaime Ancla, and in requiring the petitioner Alfredo Azarcon who was in possession thereof to sign a pro forma receipt for it, effectively “designated” petitioner a depositary and, hence, citing U.S. vs. Rastrollo,xxx[30] a public officer.xxxi[31] This is based on the theory that

“(t)he power to designate a private person who has actual possession of a distrained property as a depository of distrained property is necessarily implied in the BIR’s power to place the property of a delinquent tax payer (sic) in distraint as provided for under Sections 206, 207 and 208 (formerly Sections 303, 304 and 305) of the National Internal Revenue Code, (NIRC) x x x.”xxxii[32]

We disagree. The case of U.S. vs. Rastrollo is not applicable to the case before us simply because the facts therein are not identical, similar or analogous to those obtaining here. While the cited case involved a judicial deposit of the proceeds of the sale of attached property in the hands of the debtor, the case at bench dealt with the BIR’s administrative act of effecting constructive distraint over alleged property of taxpayer Ancla in relation to his back taxes, property which was received by petitioner Azarcon. In the cited case, it was clearly within the scope of that court’s jurisdiction and judicial power to constitute the judicial deposit and give “the depositary a character equivalent to that of a public official.”xxxiii[33] However, in the instant case, while the BIR had authority to require petitioner Azarcon to sign a receipt for the distrained truck, the NIRC did not grant it power to appoint Azarcon a public officer.

It is axiomatic in our constitutional framework, which mandates a limited government, that its branches and administrative agencies exercise only that power delegated to them as “defined either in the Constitution or in legislation or in both.”xxxiv[34] Thus, although the “appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the President, x x x”xxxv[35] the quantum of powers possessed by an administrative agency forming part of the executive branch will still be limited to that “conferred expressly or by necessary or fair implication” in its enabling act. Hence, “(a)n administrative officer, it has been held, has only such powers as are expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof.”xxxvi[36] Corollarily, implied powers “are those which are necessarily included in, and are therefore of lesser degree than the power granted. It cannot extend to other matters not embraced therein, nor are not incidental thereto.”xxxvii[37] For to so extend the statutory grant of power “would be an encroachment on powers expressly lodged in Congress by our

Constitution.”xxxviii[38] It is true that Sec. 206 of the NIRC, as pointed out by the prosecution, authorizes the BIR to effect a constructive distraint by requiring “any person” to preserve a distrained property, thus:

“x x x x x x x x x

The constructive distraint of personal property shall be effected by requiring the taxpayer or any person having possession or control of such property to sign a receipt covering the property distrained and obligate himself to preserve the same intact and unaltered and not to dispose of the same in any manner whatever without the express authority of the Commissioner.

x x x x x x x x x”

However, we find no provision in the NIRC constituting such person a public officer by reason of such requirement. The BIR’s power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public officer. The prosecution argues that “Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code x x x defines the individuals covered by the term ‘officers’ under Article 217xxxix[39] x x x” of the same Code.xl[40] And accordingly, since Azarcon became “a depository of the truck seized by the BIR” he also became a public officer who can be prosecuted under Article 217 x x x.”xli[41]

The Court is not persuaded. Article 222 of the RPC reads:

“Officers included in the preceding provisions. -- The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.”

“Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice.”xlii[42] This is particularly observed in the interpretation of penal statutes which “must be construed with such strictness as to carefully safeguard the rights of the defendant x x x.”xliii[43] The language of the foregoing provision is clear.

A private individual who has in his charge any of the public funds or property enumerated therein and commits any of the acts defined in any of the provisions of Chapter Four, Title Seven of the RPC, should likewise be penalized with the same penalty meted to erring public officers. Nowhere in this provision is it expressed or implied that a private individual falling under said Article 222 is to be deemed a public officer.

After a thorough review of the case at bench, the Court thus finds petitioner Alfredo Azarcon and his co-accused Jaime Ancla to be both private individuals erroneously charged before and convicted by Respondent Sandiganbayan which had no jurisdiction over them. The Sandiganbayan’s taking cognizance of this case is of no moment since “(j)urisdiction cannot be conferred by x x x erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction.”xliv[44] As aptly and correctly stated by the petitioner in his memorandum:

“From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the petitioner did not cease to be a private individual when he agreed to act as depositary of the garnished dump truck. Therefore, when the information charged him and Jaime Ancla before the Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds or property, the prosecution was in fact charging two private individuals without any public officer being similarly charged as a co-conspirator. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the controversy and therefore all the proceedings taken below as well as the Decision rendered by Respondent Sandiganbayan, are null and void for lack of jurisdiction.”xlv[45]

WHEREFORE, the questioned Resolution and Decision of the Sandiganbayan are hereby SET ASIDE and declared NULL and VOID for lack of jurisdiction. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GREGORIO MAGALLANES, accused-appellant.

FRANCISCO, J.:

22

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

On September 29, 1991, at around three o'clock in the afternoon, the appellant, GREGORIO MAGALLANES, who war a "mananari" or gaffer of fighting cocks, trekked the road to the cockpit of Poblacion Sagbayan, Bohol. The appellant was in the company of several other cockfighting afficionados, among whom were Romualdo Cempron and Danilo Salpucial. While on their way, they passed by Virgilio Tapales who was drinking in the store of Umping Amores which was located on the elevated side of the road. Tapales hailed Cempron and invited him for a drink but the latter courteously refused as he was going to the cockpit. Tapales approached Cempron and conversed with him briefly. For some unknown reason, Tapales then directed his attention to the appellant who was walking a few steps behind Cempron. Tapales held the appellant by his shirt slapped him and strangled his neck. But seeing a knife tucked in Tapales' waist, the appellant pulled out the knife and slashed at Tapales to loosen his grip. The appellant succeeded in wounding the face and neck of Tapales who let go of the appellant and fled for his life. Insatiated, the appellant pursued Tapales and when the latter fell, the appellant stabbed him several more times before uttering the following words: "you are already dead in that case". 1 With that, the appellant stood up and rode on the motorcycle being driven by Danilo Salpucial. Later, the appellant surrendered to the police authorities of the town of Inabanga, Bohol.

For the death of Tapales, the appellant and Salpucial were charged as principal and accessory, respectively, of the crime of murder allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 29th day of September, 1991 in the municipality of Sagbayan, province of Bohol, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the first above-named accused as Principal, with intent to kill and without justifiable cause, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the use of a sharp-pointed, sharp-edges (sic) weapon (knife) one Virgilio Tamales y Melendres hitting and injuring the vital parts of the body of the victim which resulted in the victim`s instantaneous death; that the second above-named accused, as Accessory, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of Murder, but without having participated therein either as Principal

or as an Accomplice, did then and there willfully unlawfully, feloniously and knowing (sic) take part in said crime after the commission thereof, to wit: by allowing accused Gregorio Magallanes to, and taking him on a, (sic) backride on the motorcycle which accused Danilo Salpucial was driving and operating, in order to flee from the scene of the crime; . . . 2

During arraignment, the appellant expressed his willingness to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide with the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender; Salpucial, on the other hand, pleaded no guilty to the charges against him. The prosecution refused to lower the charge from murder to homicide, hence, trial ensued after which, a decision was rendered finding the appellant guilty of the crime of murder and acquitting Salpucial on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of said decision is quoted hereunder:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused Gregorio Magallanes GUILTY of the crime of Murder punished under Article 243 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessories of the law and to pay the cost.

The accused Gregorio Magallanes is further ordered to indemnify the surviving spouse Nathaline Tapales in the amount of P50,000.00 representing indemnity, P50,000.00 representing moral and exemplary damages, P31,300.00 — burial and incidental expenses relative to the death of Virgilio Tapales and P3,000.00 representing attorneys fees, in all instances, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

xxx xxx xxx

Relative to the accused Danilo Salpucial judgment is hereby rendered ACQUITTING the aforementioned Danilo Salpucial of the crime as charged, with cost de officio.

xxx xxx xxx

Before us now is the appeal interposed by Gregorio Magallanes where he invokes the justifying circumstance of self-defense in his favor, and contends, in the alternative, that he should be convicted of the crime of homicide only and not murder.

Anent the claim of self-defense, we reiterate herein the time honored doctrine that although it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits committing the crime but only in defense of oneself. In the latter case, the burden is shifted to the accused who must prove clearly and convincingly the following elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 4

The appellant asseverates that he was justified in stabbing Tapales as he was merely defending himself from the former's unlawful and unprovoked aggression. But the prosecution witnesses are one in testifying that it was the appellant who mercilessly pursued the already wounded Tapales, and when the latter fell to the ground, inflicted several more stab wounds on his person including a fatal blow to his neck.

Engineer Sabino Tubal testified as follows:

Q. When you saw the two, Gregorio Magallanes and Virgilio Tapales, what did you notice?

A. I saw Virgilio Tapales already bleeding and Gregorio Magallanes bringing a knife.

xxx xxx xxx

COURT:

Did you actually see the stabbing incident?

23

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

A. Yes, your Honor.

COURT:

Who stabbed the victim?

A. It was Gregorio Magallanes who stabbed the victim.

Q. When you say victim, you are referring to Virgilio Tapales?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now you said that it was Gregorio Magallanes who stabbed the victim, which did not the victim run?

A. He ran but he was chased by Gregorio Magallanes.

Q. When Virgilio Tapales fell what happened next?

A. This Gregorio Magallanes was on top of the victim and then Gregorio Magallanes stabbed the throat of the victim.

Q. How far were you from the place where Virgilio Tapales fell and according to you Magallanes rode on top of the victim and stabbed his neck?

A. Almost two meters distance.

Q. Did you hear any word from Gregorio Magallanes at that time?

A. When Gregorio Magallanes already stood up that was the time he said saying (sic), "You are already dead in the case." 5

The foregoing was corroborated by another witness, Esterlita Amodia-Tubal:

Q. Please tell the court briefly the first thing that you saw?

A. At that time I and my helper were doing some gardening work infront (sic) of our house and all of a sudden my helper called me this way: "Nang Neng, what is that? And I turned my back and saw Virgilio Tapales who was chased by Gregorio Magallanes.

Q. How far were you from or rather to Magallanes when the latter chased Virgilio Tapales?

A. More or less eight meters.

Q. Was Virgilio Tapales over run (sic) by Magallanes in the chase?

A. I saw that Gregorio Magallanes stabbed Virgilio Tapales.

Q. How many times did you see Magallanes stabbed (sic) Virgilio Tapales?

A. One time.

Q. And what happen (sic) to Virgilio Tapales?

A. Virgilio Tapales was at that time still running being chased by Magallanes. There is a fence and at the end of that fence there was a guava tree. It so happen that this Virgilio Tapales run towards that tree and this Gregorio Magallanes stabbed and slashed the neck of Virgilio Tapales at the upper portion of the heart just above the left side of the face and at that time I had my children with me so I run to our store to put my children in safe condition. When I went back to the store I saw my husband coming from our ricemill and because I was afraid that my husband would be stabbed because I really saw Gregorio Magallanes slashed (sic) the neck of Virgilio Tapales I shouted to my husband that he might be stabbed.

24

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

COURT:

Which happened first the stabbing or the slashing?

A. The stabbing your Honor followed by slashing on the left face and neck. 6

Clearly, whatever act of aggression that was initiated by Tapales against the appellant had already ceased as demonstrated by the fact that Tapales was running away from the appellant. The tables were turned when the appellant chased Tapales with the obvious intent of stabbing him. At this juncture, the appellant had assumed the role of aggressor, thus, his claim of self-defense cannot obviously prosper. In People v. Tampon 7

we ruled that:

Even granting arguendo that the initial act of aggression came from Entellano (the victim) as claimed by the appellant, we still cannot sustain his plea of self-defense. As testified by the appellant, he grappled with Entellano for the knife and was able to take possession of the same. At this point, it was no longer necessary for appellant to stab Entellano in order to protect himself. His subsequent act of stabbing the now unarmed Entellano belies his claim that he acted in self-preservation and indicates nothing more than a perverse desire to kill. Thus, this Court held in the case of People v. So, that "[a]fter appellant successfully wrested the knife from Tuquero, the unlawful aggression has ceased, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. 8

Another factor which militates against the appellant's claim of self-defense is the nature and number of wounds suffered by Tapales. Dr. Pancracio Garay, the Rural Health Physician who examined Tapales' dead body, testified that the same sustained seven (7) stab wounds in all caused by a sharp bladed weapon. 9 And it is an oft-repeated rule that the presence of a large number of wounds on the part of the victim negates self-defense and instead, indicates a determined effort to kill the victim. 10 The appellant, however, seeks exception to this

rule by pointing our the superficial nature of majority of the wounds inflicted on Tapales, and the fact that of the seven (7) wounds, only one (1) was fatal enough to cause his death. We disagree.

According to the testimony of Dr. Garay, Tapales suffered the following injuries:

Q: Will you please read into the records the injuries that you found?

A: First we have incised wound 10 to 14 cms. 10 x 4 cms. located at the base of the skull extending from the posterior portion of the right ear down to the nape.

Q: Will you please point to the court using yourself as the person examined that location of the wound.

A: Here.

INTERPRETER:

Witness pointing to the base of the skull up to the nape of the neck. Witness showing it to the court.

Q. What is the second injury you found in the person of Virgilio Tapales?

A. Second is incised wound about 20 cms. by 7 cms. extending from the occipietal (sic) area of the head

passing the left ear cutting it into halves.

COURT:

In layman's language how do you call that?

A. Ear.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. What other injuries did you find?

A. 7 cm by 3 cm by 6 cm stabbed (sic) wound at the anterior area of the neck at the superior border of the manobrium.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. What was the fourth injury you found?

A. Stabbed (sic) wound 5 x 1 x 5 cm. penetrating the torasic (sic) area hitting the spinal column.

Q. Where is that?

A. It is found at the back.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. What was the next wound?

A. Next is incised wound measuring 14 x 2 cms. about 1 to 2

25

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

cms. just above the left scapula.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Can you tell the court, considering the location of the wound where the person who wounded Tapales must have been position (sic) in relation to Tapales?

A. Must have been at the back also.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Anymore injury?

A. There is another incised wound about 6 cms. in length at the left palmar area.

INTERPRETER:

Witness is pointing to the lower portion of his left palm.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Any other wound?

A. Another is 2 cms. length incised wound at the right palm.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. In other words deceased Virgilio Tapales sustained six wounds?

A. Seven wounds. 11

Of the seven (7) wounds, five (5) were located in the neck area suggesting that the appellant struck at Tapales with resolve to cause serious if not mortal damage to Tapales' person. There certainly was no necessity to inflict such wounds upon Tapales especially in view of the fact that the latter was not even armed. The appellant's theory of self-defense is therefore overthrown by the hard reality that the alleged aggressor-the deceased in this case-sustained seven (7) stab wounds in the hands of the appellant while failing to inflict upon the appellant even a minor injury as token of his alleged belligerence and aggression. 12

As an alternative defense, the appellant asseverates that the killing of Tapales was not attended by treachery which would quality it to murder, hence, he should have been convicted of the crime of homicide only. The appellant bewails the finding of treachery by the RTC "despite the fact that the initial unlawful aggression was started by the deceased victim, Virgilio Tapales, at the middle of the road in broad daylight." 13 On the other hand, the prosecution insists that the killing was treacherous because it was perpetrated while the defenseless Tapales was running away from the appellant, thereby giving the latter opportunity to stab Tapales at the back without warning. 14 On this issue we find for the appellant.

"There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." 15 Thus, for treachery or alevosia to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of two (2) conditions: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. 16 The latter condition is immediately negated by the fact that the meeting between the appellant and Tapales was by chance. We have held that:

. . . where the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively, there is no treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected and while the victim was running away with his back towards the accused. As has been aptly, observed the accused could not have made preparations for the attack, . . . ; and the means, method

and form thereof could not therefore have been thought of by the accused, because the attack was impulsively done. 17

Treachery cannot also be presumed from the mere suddenness of the attack or from the fact that the victim was stabbed with his back towards the appellant. In point is the following pronouncement we made in People v. Escoto:

We can not presume that treachery was present merely from the fact that the attack was sudden. The suddenness of an attack, does not of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim's helpless position was accidental. In fact from the reaction of Robert in running away from the Escoto brothers the moment he saw them, we can reasonably conclude that he was not completely unaware that herein appellant and Willie posed a danger to him and this necessarily put him on guard, with the opportunity to prevent or repel a possible assault. 18

This is particularly true in the instant case where Tapales initiated the unlawful agression against the appellant and should therefore have been forewarned of the possibility of retaliation from him.

Furthermore, although Tapales sustained seven (7) stab wounds, some of them located at his back, we can not infer from this physical evidence alone that treachery was initially present in the case at bar. 19 And it is a fundamental rule of long standing that for treachery to be appreciated, that circumstance must be present at the inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack is continuous, treachery if present at a subsequent stage is not to be considered. 20

Absent the qualifying circumstance of treachery, we therefore find the appellant guilty only of the crime of homicide. Moreover, a careful scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the trial court had erroneously failed to appreciate in mitigation of the appellant's penalty the circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty.

26

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Felix Estillore, a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), and a witness for the prosecution had in fact testified that the appellant surrendered to the Police of Inabanga, Bohol after the stabbing incident. 21 The fact that the appellant chose to surrender to the police authorities of Inabanga and not Sagbayan where the crime happened is not to be taken against him. He fled Sagbayan not to hide from the police authorities but to evade retaliation from the relatives of the deceased. Besides, the law does not require that the perpetrator of an offense to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, must give himself up to the authorities in the municipality where the offense was committed. All that the law requires is for the offender to surrender to the authorities to save the government the trouble and the expense of looking for him in order to arrest him. 22

Finally, on record is the appellant's willingness to enter a plea of guilty but to the lesser crime of homicide. It only remains to consider briefly whether the appellant's plea of guilty in the form it was entered constitutes a voluntary confession of guilt before the court as defined in paragraph 7 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. 23

In People v. Yturriaga 24 where the accused who was charged with murder entered a qualified plea of guilty by claiming that the alleged qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation did not exist, we said that:

Although the confession was qualified and introduction of evidence became necessary, the qualification did not deny the defendant's guilt and, what is more, was subsequently fully justified. It was not the defendant's fault that aggravating circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information and mitigating circumstances omitted therefrom. If such qualification could deprive the accused of the benefit of plea of guilty, then the prosecution could nullify this mitigating circumstance by counteracting it with unfounded allegations of aggravating circumstances. 25

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED by convicting the appellant Gregorio Magallanes of the crime of homicide only with the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty in his favor, and imposing upon him an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to

ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. In all other respects, the judgment of the court a quo is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE VS. MAGALLANESG.R. Nos. 118013-14 October 11, 1995

FACTS: In the evening of August 7, 1992, the Spouses Dumancas, under the direction and cooperation of P/Col. Nicolas Torres who took advantage of his position as station commander of the PNP, with Police Inspector Abeto’s cooperation, induced other police officers, namely: Canuday, Pahayupan, Lamis, civilian agents: Fernandez, Divinagracia, Delgado and Gargallano, to abduct kidnap and detain, Rufino Gargar and Danilo Lumangyao, with the use of a motor vehicle and then shot and killed the victims with evident premeditation, treachery and nocturnity. The other accused secretly buried the victims in a makeshift shallow grave to conceal the crime of murder for a fee of P500.00 each.

The cases were consolidated and the accused pleaded not guilty and filed motions for bail. The prosecution presented Moises Grandeza, the alleged lone eyewitness and co-conspirator in the offense. After the prosecution rested its case, the trial court received evidence for the accused, but the reception of evidence was suspended because of the motions for inhibition of judge Garvilles filed by several accused. Garvilles voluntarily inhibited himself and the case was re-raffled. However, the prosecution moved for the transmittal of the recors to the Sandiganbayan because the offenses charged were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers. The trial court ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction because the informations do not state that the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers and denied the Motion for the Transfer of Records to Sandiganbayan. The prosecution moved to reconsider but the same was denied.

The reception of evidence was resumed but the judge later inhibited himself. The cases were then re-raffled to Branch 49 of tne Regional Trial Court of Bacolod. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, challenging the refusal of the judge to transfer the cases to the Sandiganbayan. The private respondents were required to comment on the petition and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent judge to desist from proceeding with the trial of the case.

ISSUE: Whether the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers

HELD: The jurisdiction of a court may be determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the action. When the informations in the cases were filed, the law governing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was P.D. 1861 , which provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving: 1) violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; 2) offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office, where the penalty prescribed is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment of six (6) years, or a fine of P 6,000.00.

If the penalty for the offense charged does not exceed imprisonment of six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00, it shall be tried by the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

Jurisdiction is also determined by the allegations in the complaint or information and not by the result of the evidence after the trial. In the present case, the Sandiganbayan has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the cases. The allegations in the complaint or information of “taking advantage of his position” is not sufficient to bring the offenses within the definition of “offenses committed in relation to public office.” It is considered merely as an aggravating circumstance.

Moreover, the Sandiganbayan has partly lost its jurisdiction over cases involving violations of R.A. 3019, as amended in R.A. 1379 because it only retains jurisdiction on cases enumerated in subsection (a) when the public officers rank is classified as Grade “27” or higher. In the case at bar, none of the PNP officers involved occupy a position classified as Grade “27” or higher. Accused Torres, who is highest in rank among the accused, only has a rank classified as Grade “18”.

Lastly, the courts cannot be divested of jurisdiction which was already acquired before the subsequent enactment of R.A. 7975 which limited the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to officers whose rank is Grade “27” or higher, be4cause the courts retain its jurisdiction until the end of litigation. Hence, cases already under the jurisdiction of the courts at the time of the enactment of R.A. 7975 are only referred to the proper courts if trial has not yet begun at that time. Petition is DENIED and the challenged orders are AFFIRMED.

27

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

28

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

xxxi

29

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

xxxii

xxxiii

xxxiv

xxxv

xxxvi

xxxvii

xxxviii

xxxix

xl

xli

xlii

xliii

xliv

xlv

30