BALABA vs. PEOPLEFacts:

- Accused Irenorio Balaba, was the then assistant Municipal Treasurer of Guidulman, Bohol.

- He was charged with Malversation of Funds and found guilty of the said offense by the RTC of Loay, Bohol on Dec. 9, 2002.

- Then, on Jan. 14, 2003, Balaba filed his Notice of Appeal to the CA.- The CA, however, dismissed the appeal and declared that it had no

jurisdiction to act on the appeal because the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case.

Issues:1. W/N the CA erred in dismissing Balaba’s appeal instead of certifying

the case to the proper court. NO.2. W/N the SB has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case.

YES.

Ruling: 1. The CA did not err.- In the case of Melencion v. SB, the SC ruled that, an error in

designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the correction in designating the proper court should be made within the 15-day period to appeal. xxx. Otherwise, the second paragraph of Sec. 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court would apply, which states that, “An appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.”

2. The SB shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTCs whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction.

ESTEBAN vs. SANDIGANBAYANFacts:

- Petitioner Judge Rogelio Esteban, a public officer, being the Presiding Judge of Br. 1 of the MTC in Cabanatuan, was charged for the violation of RA No. 7877 or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law and for acts of lasciviousness before the Sandiganbayan.

- Then, the Petitioner filed a motion to quash the charges on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crimes charged considering that they were not committed in relation to his office as a judge.

- The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion to quash, holding that “the act of approving or indorsing the permanent appointment of complaining witness was certainly a function of the office.”

Issue: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Criminal Cases for acts of lasciviousness filed against Petitioner. YES.

Ruling:- In the case of People v. Montejo, the SC ruled that an offense is said to

have been committed in relation to the office if the offense is “intimately connected” with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions.

- This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. This is in accordance with the rule that the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or Information.

- Thus, where the information is wanting in specific averments to show the intimate relationship/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official functions, the SB has no jurisdiction over the case.

- According to a SC Circular, petitioner, as the presiding judge of the MTCC, he is vested with the power to recommend the appointment of the victim Simbajon as bookbinder. As alleged in the Amended Informations, she was constrained to approach petitioner as she needed his recommendation. But he imposed a condition before extending such recommendation – be his gf and must report to his office for a kiss.

o There can be no doubt that petitioner used his official position in committing the acts complained of.

- Though it is true that public office is not an element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC, however, he could

not have committed the crimes charged were it not for the fact that as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, he has the authority to recommend the appointment of Simbajon as bookbinder.

- In other words, the crimed allegedly are intimately committed with his office.

GEDUSPAN VS PEOPLEFacts:

- On July 11, 2002, an information was filed against petitioner Marilyn C. Geduspan and Dr. Evangeline C. Farahmand, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth) Regional Manager/Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tiong Bi Medical Center, Tiong Bi, Inc., respectively for violation of the Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act.

- Both accused filed a joint motion to quash dated July 29, 2002 contending that the respondent Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over them considering that the principal accused Geduspan was a Regional Director of Philhealth, Region VI, a position classified under salary grade 26.

ISSUE: Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the case?

RULING:

- Yes. The records show that, although Geduspan is a Director of Region VI of the Philhealth, she is not occupying the position of Regional Director but that of Department Manager A. It is petitioner’s appointment paper and the notice of salary adjustment that determine the classification of her position, that is, Department Manager A of Philhealth.

- The position of manager in a government-owned or controlled corporation, as in the case of Philhealth, is within the jurisdiction of respondent court. It is the position that petitioner holds, not her salary grade, that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

- Hence, respondent court is vested with jurisdiction over petitioner together with Farahmand, a private individual charged together with her.

LLORENTE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts: - Petitioner Llorente, a municipal mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga, was

charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

- Pending the case, Congress enacted RA 7975, limiting the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

- Petitioner Llorente, then, contended that by virtue of RA 7975, the Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction over his case, as he his salary is less than that corresponding to Grade 27.

Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan was divested of jurisdiction over violations of RA No. 3019, as amended, against municipal mayors.

Held: No.- To determine whether the official is within the exclusive jurisdiction

of the Sandiganbayan, reference should be made to RA 6758 and the Index of Occupational Services, position Titles, and Salary Grades.

- An official’s grade is not a matter of proof, but a matter of law which the court must take judicial notice.

- Moreover, under Sec. 444(d) of the LGC and the 1989 and 1997 versions of the Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades list the municipal mayor is classified under Salary Grade 27.

- Thus, the case against Petitioner Llorente is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

INDING vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts: - Petitioner Ricardo Inding, a member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod

of Dapitan was charged with the violation of Sec 3(e) of RA No. 3019.- Inding, then, filed a motion for the dismissal of the case for lack of

jurisdiction over the officers charged or, in the alternative, for the referral of the case either to the RTC or the MTC.

- He alleged that under Administrative Order No. 270, he is a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City with Salary grade 25.

- That under RA No. 7975, which amended PD No. 1606, the SB exercises original jurisdiction to try cases involving crimes committed by local government officials that occupy positions with SG 27 or higher and also, under Sec. 2, RA No. 7975, the RTC, not the SB, has original jurisdiction over the crime charged against him.

- Sandiganbayan denied the motion of the Petitioner.- On appeal to the SC, petitioner contended that, at the time the offense

charged was allegedly committed, he was occupying the position of Sangguniang Panlungsod Member 1 with SG 25.

Issue:Whether the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over crime charged against the petitioner, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan.

Ruling: YES.

- For purposes of determining which of the two laws, RA No. 7975 or RA No. 8249, applies in the present case, the reakoning period is the time the commission of the offense.

- Generally, the jurisdiction of a court is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime.

- Exceptions to the rule are the said laws as it expressly states that to determine the jurisdiction of the SB in cases involving violations of the RA No. 3019, the reckoning period is the time of the commission of the offense.

- In this case, the crime charged was from Jan, 1997 to Aug, 1997. Thus, the applicable law is RA No. 7975.

- There is, then, no dispute that the petitioner is a member of the sangguniang panlungsod of Dapitan City and he is charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA No. 3019.

- Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod are specifically included as among those within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in Section 4 a.(1) (b) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975,  or even Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8249 for that matter.  

- The Sandiganbayan, therefore, has original jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case docketed as Criminal Case No. 25116.

PEOPLE vs. MONTEJO 108 Phil. 652

FACTS: - This is a case for murder filed against the former Mayor Leroy Brown

of Basilan City together with some Basilan policeman. - Brown ordered his men to arrest the suspect and he was interrogated.

It is in the course of the investigation or interrogation that they committed the crime of murder.

ISSUE: Was the crime of murder committed in relation to his office?

HELD: - Yes. In other words, if they were not public officers they would not

have succeeded in committing the crime. - 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 havecommitted 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.”

- Of course, normally when you say in relation to his office… mga falsification or malversaton… yan, talagang klaro. That is the normal meaning. That is why in the 1995 case of CUNANAN VS. ARCEO, 242 SCRA, the SC held that an offense may be considered as committed in

relation to the accused's office if the offense cannot exist without the office such that the office is a constituent element of the crime.

SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU 207 SCRA 627FACTS:

- Mayor Sanchez of Calauan was charged with rape and homicide for the deaths of Aileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez. They were charged before the RTC.

- Sanchez questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC that since he is an incumbent mayor at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, his case should be tried before the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: - Yes. The case should be tried by the RTC and not Sandiganbayan. The

case of Sanchez was not considered in relation to their office.- “There is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of

rape with homicide and Sanchez’ 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 Sanchez’ official functions to make it fall under the exception laid down in People vs. Montejo.”

- “In that case of People vs. Montejo, 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 Supreme Court 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.’

- Indeed, they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices.

- “We have read the informations in the case at bar and find no allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to Sanchez 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.”

CORPUZ vs. TANODBAYAN April 15, 1987FACTS:

- The accused here is a Comelec registrar who allowed the registration of voters outside of the registration day. So he committed a violation of the Election Code and he committed a crime in relation to his office.

- For that,he was charged before the Sandiganbayan under the 1973 Constitution. Now, he challenged the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to try the case and also the jurisdiction of the former Tanodbayan which is now the Ombudsman.

- Under the Election Code, violations of election code committed by public officers in relation to their office are supposed to be tried by the RTC. It is a direct provision in the code – RTC eh! And the preliminary investigation should be conducted by the Comelec under the election code.

- And of course the prosecution said: “No! Under the law, when the crime is committed by a public officer in relation to his office, it should be the Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts.”

- Pero sabi ng accused: “Under the election code, it should be the RTC!” Ngayon, sino ngayon mag-prevail dyan?

HELD: - The election code prevails because there is a specific provision which

is: crimes under the election code.- Whereas the provisions of the Sandiganbayan is broader: crimes

committed by public officers in relation to their duty.- That applies to public officers in general. So the specific provision

prevails over the general provision.

GARCIA vs. MIRO

Facts: - Judge Garcia, the then Presiding Judge of MCTC of Calatraa-Tobosa,

Negros Occidental was charged with the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide before the MCTC of Calatrava-Tobosa.

- Petitioner Judge, then, filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the court trying the case had no jurisdiction over the offense charged against him.

- He alleged that, as a judge, the case against him should have been filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the SC has original jurisdiction over the crime charged against Judge Garcia.

Ruling: No.- While it is true that the Constitution vested the SC with the task to

oversee the judges and court personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation of the laws of the land, this power is limited only to administrative supervision and when the offense committed by the respondent Judge or Court personnel is in relation to the performance of his official functions.

- In this case, the criminal case filed against Judge Garcia was in no way related to the performance of his duties as a Judge.

- The case filed against Judge Garcia before the MCTC is a criminal case under its own jurisdiction as prescribed by law and not an administrative case.

- To be sure, trial courts retain jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of offenses committed by judges of the lower court.

MIAQUE VS. JUDGE PATAG

Facts: - On January, 2000, five Informations for libel were filed in the RTC of

Iloilo against Petitioner Miague and five others.- However, these Informations were quashed for lack of jurisdiction

over the offenses charged as the said Informations failed to allege either that private complainant Aragona actually held office in Iloilo at the commission of the offense or that the alleged remarks were printed or first published in Iloilo City.

- Then, five years later or on June, 2005, new Informations were filed incorporating now the allegation that were missing in the previous Informations.

- Said new Informations were likewise signed and by Asst. Prosecutor Maranon.

- Upon knowing this, Petitioner Miaque filed a Motion alleging that the new Informations were filed by the Iloilo Provincial Prosector’s Office and not the Iloilo City Prosecutor’s Office which has the proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

Issue: W/N the Iloilo Provincial Prosector’s Office has the authority to file and sign the new Informations against Petitioner Miaque. NO.

Ruling: - Under Sec. 11 (b) of PD 1275, Provincial Fiscals or City Fiscals shall

investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges or crimes, misdemeanors and violations all penal laws and ordinances within their respective jurisdictions and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made against the persons accused.

- In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the alleged acts of libel were committed in Iloilo City.

- Pursuant to the Charter of the City of Iloilo, the City Fiscal, now called the City Prosecutor shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violation of city ordinances, in the CFI (now RTC) and in the MTC of the city, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial fiscals.

- Therefore, the authority to sign and file the new Informations should have been properly lodged with the Iloilo City Prosecutor’s Office and not with the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s Office.

- In a jurisprudence (Pp v. Hon. Garfin) the SC ruled that: It is a valid information signed by a competent officer which, among other

requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the person of the accused. An infirmity in the Information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.

- Hence, the petition of Petitioner Miaque was granted - SC dismissed the case without prejudice to the filing of new

Informations by an authorized officer.

PEOPLE vs. ARTURO DUCAFacts:

- Arturo Duca, together with his mother Cecilia Duca, were charged with the crime of Falsification of Official Document defined and penalized under Art. 172, in relation with Art. 172 of the RPC before the MCTC of San Fabian-San Jacinto, Pangasinan.

- Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded “not guilty”.- MCTC convicted the accused of the crimes charged. RTC affirmed

MCTC’s decision.- However, on appeal to the CA, the latter court acquitted the accused.- Feeling aggrieved, Petitioner filed a petition before the SC. It argued

that the prosecution was denied due process when the CA resolved the respondent’s appeal without notifying the People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor-General (Sol-Gen), of the pendency of the appeal in the CA and without requiring the Sol-Gen to file his comment. Thus, the CA gravely abused its authority when it acted on respondent’s appeal without affording the prosecution the opportunity to be heard.

- On the other hand, the respondent argued that the prosecution was properly represented by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and a private prosecutor who handled the presentation of evidence under the control and supervision of the Provincial Prosecutor. Since the control and supervision conferred on the private prosecutor by the Provincial Prosecutor had not been withdrawn, the Sol-Gen could not claim that the prosecution was not afforded a chance to be heard in the CA.

Issue: W/N respondent Duca was correct. NO.

Ruling: - The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before

the CA and SC is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG).

- Under Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, all criminal actions commenced by complaint or Information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts and the regional trial courts. However, when such criminal actions are brought to the Court of Appeals or this Court, it is the Solicitor General who must represent the People of the Philippines not the fiscal.

- The OSG is the law office of the Government authorized by law to represent the Gov’t or the People of the Philippines before the SC and before the CA in all criminal proceedings, or before any court, tribunal, body, or commission in any matter, action or proceeding which, in the opinion of the Sol-Gen, affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.

- The Sol-Gen is regarded as the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in criminal cases, and as such, should have been given the opportunity to be heard on behalf of the People.

- In this case, however, the record showed that the CA failed to require the Sol-Gen to file his comment on the petition of Duca

- This failure of the CA to require the Sol-Gen to file his Comment deprived the prosecution of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case.

- Where there is violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction and where denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered is void for lack of jurisdiction.

- Hence, the decision of the CA acquitting Duca without giving the Sol-Gen the chance to file his comment on the petition for review clearly deprived the State of its right to refute the material allegation of the said petition filed before the CA.

- SC set aside the decision of the CA and remanded the case to the CA for further proceedings.