Criminal Procedure - Juridiction

7/26/2019 Criminal Procedure - Juridiction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-procedure-juridiction 1/10

MAE NIAGARA M. BALANAY Subject: Criminal Procedure

PEOPLE vs MONTEJO, 108 Phil. 613

FACTS:

Leroy S. Brown, Mayor of Basilan City, Detective Joauin !.Pollisco and several "olicemen were c#ar$ed wit# murder. %t wasalle$ed in t#e information t#at durin$ May and June &'(), MayorBrown #as or$ani*ed $rou"s of "olice "atrol and civiliancommandoes, consistin$ of re$ular and s"ecial "olicemen, w#om#e armed wit# "istols and #i$# "ower $uns and #as establis#ed acam" called sub+"olice #eaduarters in i"o+i"o, Lamitan. Saidsub+station was "laced under #is command, orders, directsu"ervision and control. %t was also alle$ed t#at criminalcom"laints were entertained t#erein in w#ic# Detective Polliscoacted as investi$atin$ o-cer and eercised aut#ority to order t#ea""re#ension of "ersons and t#eir detention in t#e cam", for daysor wee/s, wit#out due "rocess of law and wit#out brin$in$ t#emto t#e "ro"er court. 0n or about June 1 and (, &'(), 2o/an 3walin

eba$ was arrested by t#e order of Mayor Brown, wit#out anywarrant or com"laint 4led in court and was t#en brou$#t to anddetained in t#e said sub+station. 5owever, w#ile t#ey were ont#eir way t#ereto, 3walin eba$ was maltreated by Pollisco

"ursuant to instructions of Mayor Brown and once in t#e sub+station, #e was subjected to furt#er and more severe torture of w#ic# eba$ died. o cover u" #is deat#, t#e "eace o-cerssimulated an ima$inary encounter between t#em and a band of armed bandits of w#ic# eba$ alle$edly formed "art.

ISSE:

6#et#er or not Mayor Brown #as committed an o7ense in

relation to #is o-ce.

!EL":

Mayor Brown #as committed an o7ense in relation to #iso-ce. 3lt#ou$# "ublic o-ce is not an element of t#e crime of murder in abstract, as committed by t#e main res"ondents#erein, accordin$ to t#e amended information, t#e o7ensec#ar$ed t#erein is intimately connected wit# t#eir res"ectiveo-ces and was "er"etrated w#ile t#ey were in t#e "erformance,t#ou$# im"ro"er or irre$ular, of t#eir o-cial functions. %ndeed,t#ey #ad no "ersonal motive to commit t#e crime and t#ey wouldnot #ave committed it #ad t#ey not #eld t#eir aforesaid o-ce.

#e co+defendants of Leroy Brown, obeyed #is instruction because#e was su"erior o-cer, as Mayor of Basilan City.




SANC!E# vs J"GE "EMETRIO, $0% SCRA 6$%

FACTS: #e Presidential 3nti+Crime Commission reuested t#e

De"artment of Justice to 4le a""ro"riate c#ar$es a$ainst 3ntonioL. Sanc#e*, Mayor of Calauan, La$una, and several "ersons inconnection wit# t#e ra"e+slay of Mary 8ileen Sarmenta and t#e/illin$ of 3llan 9ome*. 3ctin$ on t#is reuest, t#e Panel of StateProsecutors conducted a "reliminary investi$ation. Sanc#e* wasabsent but was re"resented by #is lawyer. 0n account of aninvitation from a PP Commander, Sac#e* a""eared forinvesti$ation. 5owever, w#en #e was "ositively identi4ed by t#e"ersons w#o eecuted confessions im"licatin$ #im as "rinci"al int#e ra"e+slay of Sarmenta and t#e /illin$ of 9ome*, #e was "laced

on arrest status and was ta/en to t#e D0J in Manila for an inuest"roceedin$. #e "rosecutors t#en 4led wit# t#e !e$ional rialCourt of Calamba, La$una, seven informations c#ar$in$ 3ntonioSanc#e* and ; ot#ers wit# ra"e and /illin$ of Sarmenta, and t#e/illin$ of 3llan 9ome* as a$$ravatin$ circumstance but due to t#etense and "artisan atmos"#ere in La$una, t#e case was later ontransferred and ra<ed to Pasi$, Metro Manila under t#e sala of

Jud$e 5arriet Demetriou. 3ntonio Sanc#e* t#en 4led a motion touas# t#e informations on t#e $rounds t#at only t#e ombudsman

#as t#e com"etence to conduct investi$ation of all casesinvolvin$ "ublic o-cers li/e #im and t#at as a "ublic o-cer, #ecan be tried for t#e o7ense only t#e by t#e Sandi$anbayan.

ISSE:&. 6#et#er or not only t#e ombudsman #as t#e com"etence

to conduct investi$ation of all cases involvin$ "ublic o-cers.=. 6#et#er or not t#e !C #as jurisdiction over t#e case.

!EL":&. %t is not only t#e 0mbudsman #as t#e com"etence to

conduct investi$ation of all cases involvin$ "ublic o-cers. #ou$#t#e 0mbudsman is indeed em"owered to investi$ation and"rosecute, any ille$al act or omission of any "ublic o-cial, t#isaut#ority is bit an eclusive aut#ority but rat#er a s#ared orconcurrent aut#ority in res"ect of t#e o7ense c#ar$ed. %n fact,ot#er investi$atory a$encies of t#e $overnment suc# as t#e D0J,in connection wit# t#e c#ar$e of sedition, and t#e Presidential



Commission on 9ood 9overnance, in ill $otten cases may conductt#e investi$ation.

=. #e !e$inal rial #as t#e jurisdiction over t#e case. >nderSection 1, Par. a of P.D. o. &;?;, as amended by P.D. &);&, t#eeclusive ori$inal jurisdiction of t#e Sandi$anbayan are only casesinvolvin$ @&A iolations of !.3. o. ?&' as amended or ot#erwise/nown as t#e 3nti+9raft and Corru"t Practices 3ct, !.3. &' andC#a"ter %%, Section =, itle %% of t#e !PC, and @=A 0t#er o7enses orfelonies committed by "ublic o-cers and em"loyees in relation tot#eir o-ce. %n t#e case at #and, t#e crime of ra"e wit# #omicidewit# w#ic# Sanc#e* stands c#ar$ed obviously do not fall undero. & w#ic# deals wit# $raft and corru"tion cases neit#er it iscovered by o. = because it is not an o7ense committed inrelation to #is o-ce. Eurt#er, t#ere is no direct relation betweent#e commission of t#e crime of ra"e wit# #omicide and t#ePetitionerFs o-ce as munici"al mayor because "ublic o-ce is not

an essential crime of t#e crime c#ar$ed. #e o7ense can standinde"endently of t#e o-ce. 5ence, bein$ an ordinary o7ense, t#ecase is triable by t#e re$ular courts and not t#e Sandi$anbayan.MAE NIAGARA M. BALANAY Subject: Criminal Procedure

LACSON vs E&ECTI'E SECRETARY 301 SCRA $(8 )1(((*

FACTS:

8leven "ersons believed to be members of t#e Guraton$Balelen$ $an$ were slain alon$ Commonwealt# 3venue in Hue*onCity by elements of t#e 3nti+Ban/ !obbery and %ntelli$ence as/9rou" @3B!%9A. #e 3B!%9 was com"osed of "olice o-cersw#ic# includes t#e t#en C#ief Su"erintendent Pan4lo Lacson w#o#eaded t#e Presidential 3nti+Crime Commission+as/ Eorce5aba$at. 3ctin$ on a media e"ose t#at w#at actually trans"ired

was a summary eecution and not a s#oot+out between t#eGuraton$ Balelen$ $an$ members and t#e 3B!%9, t#e0mbudsman formed a "anel of investi$ators #eaded by t#eDe"uty for 0mbudsman for Military 37airs to investi$ate t#eincident. #e "anel later absolved all t#e PP o-cers and"ersonnel involved 4ndin$ t#at it was a le$itimate o"erations.5owever, it was modi4ed by t#e review board w#ic# found andrecommended t#e indictment for multi"le murder a$ainst t#eres"ondents, includin$ Lacson.

Lacson was amon$ t#ose c#ar$ed as "rinci"al in eleveninformation for murder 4led before t#e Sandi$anbayanFs SecondDivision. Said information was later amended c#ar$in$ Lacsononly as an accessory to$et#er wit# ot#ers. #ereafter, Lacsonand ot#ers 4led se"arate motions uestionin$ t#e jurisdiction of t#e Sandi$anbayan, assertin$ t#at under t#e amendedinformations, t#e cases fall wit#in t#e jurisdiction of t#e !e$ional

rial Court "ursuant to Section = @"ar. a and cA of !.3. o. '(and t#at t#e law limited t#e jurisdiction of t#e Sandi$anbayan tocases w#ere one or more of t#e "rinci"al accused are $overnment



o-cials wit# Salary 9rade = or #i$#er, or PP 0-cials wit# t#eran/ of C#ief Su"erintendent or #i$#er, and t#e #i$#est ran/in$"rinci"al accused in t#e amended informations #as t#e ran/ of only a C#ief %ns"ector, and none #as t#e euivalent of at least S9=. %n a resolution, Sandi$anbayan admitted t#e amendedinformation and was ordered t#e cases transferred to t#e Hue*onCity !C but t#e 0-cial of t#e S"ecial Prosecutor moved for areconsideration, insistin$ t#at t#e cases s#ould remain wit# t#eSandi$anbayan. Pendin$ t#e motion, !.3. o. )=1' was enactedby t#e Con$ress de4nin$ e"andin$ t#e jurisdiction of t#eSandi$anbayan deletin$ t#e word I"rinci"al from t#e "#raseI"rinci"al accused in Section = @"ar. a and CA of !.3. '(. #eSandi$anbayan t#en issued a resolution ta/in$ co$ni*ance of t#ecases #erein 4led a$ainst Lacson and ot#er accused. Lacson aruet#at t#e !e$ional rial Court, not t#e Sandi$anbayan, #as t#e

jurisdiction over t#e subject criminal cases since none of t#e

"rinci"al accused under t#e amended information #as t#e ran/ of Su"erintendent or #i$#er.

ISSE:

6#et#er or not t#e Sandi$anbayan #as t#e jurisdiction overt#e case.

!EL":

#e Sandi$anbayan #as no jurisdiction over t#e case. #e jurisdiction of a court is de4ned by t#e Constitution or statute. #e elements of t#at de4nition must a""ear in t#e com"laint orinformation so as to ascertain w#ic# court #as jurisdiction over acase. 5ence t#e elementary rule t#at t#e jurisdiction of a court isdetermined by t#e alle$ations in t#e com"laint or information, andnot by t#e evidence "resented by t#e "arties at t#e trial. #emulti"le murder c#ar$e a$ainst Lacson and ot#ers falls underSection 1 K"ara$ra"# b of !.3. )=1'. Section 1 reuires t#at t#e

o7ense c#ar$ed must be committed by t#e o7ender in relation to#is o-ce in order for t#e Sandi$anbayan to #ave jurisdiction overit.

%n t#e case at bar, t#e amended informations for murdera$ainst Lacson and ot#ers are wantin$ of s"eci4c factualaverments to s#ow t#e intimate relationconnection between t#eo7ense c#ar$ed and t#e disc#ar$e of o-cial function of t#eo7enders. 6#ile t#e above+uoted information states t#at t#eabove+named "rinci"al accused committed t#e crime of murder

Nin relation to t#eir "ublic o-ce, t#ere is, #owever, no s"eci4calle$ation of facts t#at t#e s#ootin$ of t#e victim by t#e said"rinci"al accused was intimately related to t#e disc#ar$e of t#eiro-cial duties as "olice o-cers. Li/ewise, t#e amendedinformation does not indicate t#at t#e said accused arrested andinvesti$ated t#e victim and t#en /illed t#e latter w#ile in t#eircustody. 5ence, for failure to s#ow in t#e amended informationst#at t#e c#ar$e of murder was intimately connected wit# t#edisc#ar$e of o-cial functions of t#e accused PP o-cers, t#e



o7ense c#ar$ed in t#e subject criminal cases is "lain murder and,t#erefore, wit#in t#e eclusive ori$inal jurisdiction of t#e !e$ional

rial Court, not t#e Sandi$anbayan.


CORP# vs TANO"BAYAN, G.R. N+. L6$0%-

FACTS:

Private res"ondent 8steban Man$aser, an inde"endentcandidate for vice mayor of Caba, La >nion sent a letter toPresident Eerdinand 8. Marcos c#ar$in$ t#e "etitioners wit#violation of t#e &') 8lection Code, s"eci4cally for electioneerin$andor cam"ai$nin$ inside t#e votin$ centers durin$ t#e election.0n instruction from t#e Commission on 8lections @C0M8L8CA t#e!e$ional 8lection Director of San Eernando, La >nion, conducted aformal investi$ation and t#en submitted its re"ort recommendin$



to t#e C0M8L8C t#e dismissal of t#e com"laint. Man$asereventually wit#drew #is c#ar$es 4led wit# t#e C0M8L8C statin$#is intention to re4le it wit# t#e anodbayan. #ereafter, t#eC0M8L8C dismissed t#e com"laint for insu-ciency of evidence.

Subseuently t#e assistant "rovincial 4scal started a"reliminary investi$ation of a com"laint 4led by Man$aser wit#t#e anodbayan a$ainst t#e same "arties and on t#e samec#ar$es "reviously dismissed by t#e C0M8L8C. #e C0M8L8CLe$al 3ssistance 0-ce entered its a""earance for t#eres"ondents and moved for dismissal of t#e com"laint. #emotion was denied. #e 30DB323 assertin$ eclusiveaut#ority to "rosecute t#e case, stated in a letter to t#e C0M8L8CC#airman t#at a lawyer of t#e C0M8L8C if not "ro"erly de"uti*edas a anodbayan "rosecutor #as no aut#ority to conduct"reliminary investi$ations and "rosecute o7enses committed byC0M8L8C o-cials in relation to t#eir o-ce.

ISSE:

6#et#er or not t#e anodbayan #as t#e eclusive jurisdictionover t#e case.

!EL":

#e anodbayan #as no eclusive jurisdiction over t#e case.

>nder t#e Constitution and t#e 8lection Code of &'), it is t#eC0M8L8C w#o #as t#e eclusive jurisdiction to investi$ate and

"rosecute election o7enses committed by any "erson, w#et#er

"rivate individual or "ublic o-cer or em"loyee, and in t#e latter

instance, irres"ective of w#et#er t#e o7ense is committed in

relation to #is o-cial duties or not. %n ot#er words, it is t#e nature

of t#e o7ense and not t#e "ersonality of t#e o7ender t#at

matters. 3s lon$ as t#e o7ense is an election o7ense jurisdiction

over t#e same rests eclusively wit# t#e C0M8L8C, in view of itsall+embracin$ "ower over t#e conduct of elections.


BON"OC vs SAN"IGANBAYANG.R. N+. %11636-



FACTS:

wo @=A em"loyees of t#e Central Ban/ and nine @'A "rivateindividuals, were c#ar$ed wit# several felonies of estafa thrufalsication of public documents in t#ree @A se"arateinformations 4led by t#e anodbayan wit# t#e Sandi$anbayan.

#e actions were doc/eted as Criminal Cases umbered ('1' to('(& and were assi$ned to t#e Second Division of t#eSandi$anbayan.

Before t#e "rosecution rested its case, t#e anodbayan 4ledwit# t#e Sandi$anbayan anot#er set of t#ree @A indictments, t#istime a$ainst Carlito P. Bondoc and !o$elio icente, bot# "rivateindividuals, c#ar$in$ t#em wit# t#e same crimes involved inCases o. ('1' to ('(& as principals by indispensablecooperation. #e actions a$ainst Bondoc and icente weredoc/eted as Criminal Cases umbered '1' to '(& and were

assi$ned to t#e #ird Division of t#e Sandi$anbayan. Bondocmoved to uas# t#e informations on t#e basic t#eory t#at as a"rivate individual c#ar$ed as co+"rinci"al wit# $overnmentem"loyees, #e s#ould be tried jointly wit# t#e latter "ursuant toSection 1 @"ara$ra"# A of PD &;?;, as amended, #ence, t#ese"arate "roceedin$s commenced a$ainst #im were invalid, forlac/ of jurisdiction of t#e Sandi$anbayan over t#e o7enses and #is"erson. #e #ird Division denied BondocOs motion to uas# in arulin$ t#at a t#e joint trial of "rivate individuals and "ublic

em"loyees c#ar$ed as co+"rinci"als, dealt wit# in t#e cited"rovision of law, is not a jurisdictional reuirement and BondocOst#eory would "ractically ma/e t#e CourtOs Njurisdiction over a"rivate individual c#ar$ed as co+"rinci"al, accom"lice oraccessory wit# a "ublic o-cer or em"loyee de"endent u"on suc#"rivate individualN @as by evadin$ service of le$al "rocesses untilNjoint trial is no lon$er feasibleA.ISSE:

6#et#er or not t#e declaration of t#e Sandi$anbayan t#at it

was no lon$er "ossible or le$ally feasible to try t#em jointly wit#

t#e $overnment em"loyees accused of t#e same o7enses, #ad

t#e e7ect of causin$ t#e Sandi$anbayan to lose jurisdiction over

BondocOs cases

!EL":

#e declaration of t#e Sandi$anbayan t#at it was no lon$er

"ossible or le$ally feasible to try t#em jointly wit# t#e$overnment em"loyees accused of t#e same o7enses, #ad no

e7ect of causin$ t#e Sandi$anbayan to lose jurisdiction over

BondocOs cases. %t is indis"utable t#at t#e Sandi$anbayan

acuired jurisdiction of t#e o7enses c#ar$ed in t#e informations

a$ainst Bondoc and #is co+accused, based on t#e nature of t#e

crimes as described in t#e indictments and t#e "enalty "rescribed

t#erefor by law. %t must at once be evident t#at t#e seemin$



im"ossibility of a joint trial cannot and does not alter t#e essential

nature of t#e crimes in uestion, as felonies "er"etrated by "ublic

o-cers or em"loyees in confabulation wit# "rivate "ersons.

Eurt#ermore, it is not le$ally "ossible to transfer BondocOs cases

to t#e !e$ional rial Court, for t#e sim"le reason t#at t#e latter

would not #ave jurisdiction over t#e o7enses. 3s already above

intimated, t#e inability of t#e Sandi$anbayan to #old a joint trialof BondocOs cases and t#ose of t#e $overnment em"loyees

se"arately c#ar$ed for t#e same crimes, #as not altered t#e

nature of t#e o7enses c#ar$ed, as estafa t#ru falsi4cation

"unis#able by "enalties #i$#er t#an prision correccional or

im"risonment of si years, or a 4ne of P;,???.??, committed by

$overnment em"loyees in cons"iracy wit# "rivate "ersons,

includin$ Bondoc. #ese crimes are wit#in t#e eclusive, ori$inal

jurisdiction of t#e Sandi$anbayan. #ey sim"ly cannot be ta/enco$ni*ance of by t#e re$ular courts, a"art from t#e fact t#at even

if t#e cases could be so transferred, a joint trial would nonet#eless

not be "ossible.




A#ARCON vs SAN"IGANBAYAN$68 SCRA %%

FACTS:

Petitioner 3lfredo 3*arcon owned and o"erated an eart#+movin$ business, #aulin$ dirt and ore. 5is services werecontracted by P%C0P. 0ccasionally, #e en$a$ed t#e services of sub+contractors li/e Jaime 3ncla w#ose truc/s were left at t#eformerFs "remises.

0n May =(, &'), a 6arrant of Distraint of Personal Pro"ertywas issued by B%! commandin$ one of its !e$ional Directors todistraint t#e $oods, c#attels or e7ects and ot#er "ersonal"ro"erty of Jaime 3ncla, a sub+contractor of accused 3*arcon and

a delinuent ta"ayer. 3 6arrant of 9arnis#ment was issued toand subseuently si$ned by accused 3*arcon orderin$ #im totransfer, surrender, transmit andor remit to B%! t#e "ro"erty in#is "ossession owned by 3ncla. 3*arcon t#en volunteered #imself to act as custodian of t#e truc/ owned by 3ncla.

3fter some time, 3*arcon wrote a letter to t#e !e$. Dir of B%!statin$ t#at w#ile #e #ad made re"resentations to retain"ossession of t#e "ro"erty of 3ncla, #e t#ereby relinuis#esw#atever res"onsibility #e #ad over t#e said "ro"erty since 3ncla

surre"titiously wit#drew #is eui"ment from #im. %n #is re"ly, t#eB%! !e$. Dir. said t#at 3*arconFs failure to com"ly wit# t#e"rovisions of t#e warrant did not relieve #im from #isres"onsibility.

3lon$ wit# Jaime 3ncla, 3*arcon was c#ar$ed before t#eSandi$anbayan wit# t#e crime of malversation of "ublic funds or"ro"erty and was t#en convicted. %n #is "etition, 3*arcon assailedt#at t#e Sandi$anbayan does not #ave jurisdiction over crimescommitted solely by "rivate individuals and even assumin$ar$uendo t#at t#e a""ointment of a "rivate individual as a



custodian or a de"ositary of distrained "ro"erty is su-cient toconvert suc# individual into a "ublic o-cer, #e cannot still beconsidered a "ublic o-cer because t#ere is no "rovision in t#eational %nternal !evenue Code w#ic# aut#ori*es t#e Bureau of %nternal !evenue to constitute "rivate individuals as de"ositariesof distrained "ro"erties and t#at #is a""ointment as a de"ositarywas not by virtue of a direct "rovision of law, or by election or bya""ointment by a com"etent aut#ority.

ISSE:

6#et#er or t#e not Sandi$anbayan #as jurisdiction over a"rivate individual desi$nated by B%! as a custodian of distrained"ro"erty.

!EL":

#e Sandi$anbayan #as no jurisdiction over a "rivateindividual desi$nated by B%! as a custodian of distrained "ro"erty.Sec. 1 of PD &;?; "rovides for t#e jurisdiction of t#eSandi$anbayan. %t was s"eci4ed t#erein t#at t#e only instancesw#en t#e Sandi$anbayan will #ave jurisdiction over a "rivateindividual is w#en t#e com"laint c#ar$es t#e "rivate individualeit#er as a co+"rinci"al, accom"lice or accessory of a "ublico-cer or em"loyee w#o #as been c#ar$ed wit# a crime wit#in its

jurisdiction. #e %nformation does not c#ar$e "etitioner 3*arcon of bein$ a co+"rinci"al, accom"lice or accessory to a "ublic o-cercommittin$ an o7ense under t#e Sandi$anbayans

jurisdiction. #us, unless "etitioner be "roven a "ublic o-cer, t#eSandi$anbayan will #ave no jurisdiction over t#e crimec#ar$ed. 3rticle =? of t#e !PC determines w#o are "ublico-cers. 9rantin$ t#at t#e "etitioner, in si$nin$ t#e recei"t for t#etruc/ constructively distrained by t#e B%!, commenced to ta/e"art in an activity constitutin$ "ublic functions, #e obviously maynot be deemed aut#ori*ed by "o"ular election. eit#er was #e

a""ointed by direct "rovision of law nor by com"etent aut#ority.6#ile %t is true t#at Sec. =?; of t#e %!C, as "ointed out by t#e"rosecution, aut#ori*es t#e B%! to e7ect a constructive distraintby reuirin$ any "erson to "reserve a distrained "ro"erty, t#ere isno "rovision in t#e %!C constitutin$ suc# "erson a "ublic o-cerby reason of suc# reuirement. #e B%!s "ower aut#ori*in$ a"rivate individual to act as a de"ositary cannot be stretc#ed toinclude t#e "ower to a""oint #im as a "ublic o-cer.

Documents

Criminal Procedure - Juridiction