jurisdiction of sb

8/11/2019 Jurisdiction of SB

1/203

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-14595 May 31, 1960

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.HONORABLE GREGORIO MONTE O, !"#$, Co!%& o' F(%)& I*)&a*+$, a oa*#a C(&y a*" Ba)(/a* C(&y, MA ORBRO N, 2ETECTI E OA UIN R. POLLISCO, PATROLMAN GRACIANO LACERNAalias2O2ONG, PATROLMAN MOHAMA2HASBI, SPECIAL POLICEMAN 2IONISIO 2INGLASA, SPECIAL POLICEMAN HA2 ARATIL, SPECIAL POLICEMAN

OHN 2OES, respondents. Acting City Atty. Perfecto B. Querubin for petitioner.Hon. Gregorio Montejo in his own behalf.C. A. S. Sipin, r. for the other respon!ents.

CONCEPCION,J .

This is a special civil action forcertiorari, with"an!a"us and preliminar in!unction, a"ainst #on. $re"orio Monte!o, as %ud"e of theCourt of &irst 'nstance of the cities of (amboan"a and Basilan, and the defendants in Criminal Case No. )*+ of said court.

'n the petition herein, which was filed b the prosecution in said criminal case, it is pra ed that, pendin" the final determination thereof, a writ of preliminar in!unction issue, en!oinin" respondent %ud"e from proceedin" with the trial of said case that, after due hearin", therulin"s of respondent %ud"e, re!ectin" some evidence for the prosecution therein and not permittin" the same to propound certain-uestions, be set aside that said respondent %ud"e be ordered to admit the aforementioned evidence and permit said -uestions andthat enator Roseller /im be declared, contrar to another rulin" made b respondent %ud"e, dis-ualified b the Constitution fromappearin" as counsel for the accused in said criminal case. oon, after the filin" of the petition, we issued the writ of preliminarin!unction pra ed for, without bond.


2/203

'n their respective answers, respondents alle"ed, in substance, that the rulin" complained of are in conformit with law.

Respondents /ero . Brown, Ma or of Basilan Cit , 0etective %oa-uin R. Pollisco, Patrolman $raciano /acerna 1alias 0odon"2 andMohamad #asbi, pecial Policemen 0ionisio 0in"lasa, Moro 3a4an, #ad!aratil, Moro Alo and several %ohn 0oes, are char"ed, in said

Criminal Case No. )*+, with murder. 't is alle"ed in the information therein that, durin" Ma and %une, 5678, in the sitio of Tipo9Tipo,district of /amitan, Cit of Basilan, Ma or Brown :or"ani;ed "roups of police patrol and civilian commandoes:, consistin" of re"ular andspecial policemen, whom he :armed with pistols and hi"h power "uns:, and then :established a camp:, called sub9police head-uarters , and 7, 5678one 3o4an Awalin Teba" was arrested b order of Ma or Brown, without an warrant or complaint filed in court, and then brou"ht to, anddetained in, the aforementioned sub9station that while on the wa thereto, said Awalin Teba" was maltreated, pursuant to instructions of

Ma or Brown, concurred in b Pollisco, to the effect that Teba" be mauled until such time as he shall surrender his "un that, once in thesub9station, Teba", whose hands were securel tied, was sub!ected, b defendants /acerna, #asbi, Pollisco, 0in"lasa, and other specialpolicemen, to further and more severe torture, in conse-uence of which Teba" died that, in order to simulate that Teba" had been 4illedb peace officers in the course of an encounter between the latter and a band of armed bandits of which he formed part, the bod ofTeba" was brou"ht, earl the ne=t mornin", to a nearb isolated field, where defendant #asbi fired twice at said dead bod from behind,and then an old %apanese rifle, supplied b Ma or Brown, was placed beside said bod and that, in furtherance of the aforementionedsimulation, a report of said ima"inar encounter, mentionin" Teba" as the onl member of a band of armed bandits whose identit was4nown, was submitted and respondent #asbi caused one of his companions to shoot him on the left arm.

0urin" the trial of said criminal case, respondent %ud"e re!ected the followin" evidence for the prosecution therein?

5. #$hibit A< A report of Capt. &. $. arrosa, Commandin" @fficer of the PC 0etachment in Basilan Cit , who investi"ated the case,showin" that on %une 7, 5678, he and /t. Clemente Antonio, PA&, found nine 162 detainees in the Tipo9Tipo sub9station. This was part ofthe chain of evidence of the prosecution to prove that persons used to be detained in the aforementioned sub9station b the mainrespondents herein, without either a warrant of arrest or a complaint filed in court.


3/203

+. #$hibit C< /etter of Att . 0oroteo de $u;man to the officer in char"e of the sub9station, dated %une >, 5678, in-uirin" as to the whereabouts of Awalin Teba", who, accordin" to the letter, was arrested in his house, b policemen, on %une >, 5678. Capt. arrosa too4possession of this letter in the course of his aforementioned investi"ation.

.#$hibits G, G%&, G%' an! G%(< These are the transcript of the testimon of Teba" s mother, before the Cit &iscal of Basilan Cit , when she as4ed an autops of the bod of her son.

>. #$hibits to ) < Consistin" of the followin", namel ? a s4etch of the sub9station pictures of several huts therein, indicatin" theirrelative positions and distances a picture depictin" how the bod of Teba" was ta4en from a camarin in the sub9station a pictureshowin" how Patrolman #asbiwas shot b a companion, at this re-uest and a picture, E=hibit T, demonstratin" how Ma or Brownalle"edl "ave the %apanese rifle, E=hibit 3, to #asbi, to be planted beside Teba" s bod .

Althou"h referred to b 3a4an Carnain, Arit, /ianson, ona Amenola, and Asidin, in the course of their testimon as witnesses for the

prosecution, these e=hibits were not admitted in evidence, which were presented to show how the were able to observe the movementsin the sub9station, the same bein" -uite small.

7. #$hibits * 1a +barong+ 2 and *%&1a scabbar! 2 < Amenola said that these effects were "iven to him b Ma or Brown in the latter s office,and that he then saw therein the %apanese rifle, E=hibit 3, which was later placed beside the dead bod of Awalin Teba".

). #$hibits , %&, -- , , an! // < These show that on April +8, 5678, 3a4an allapattoh and &ernande; 1Pilnandi;2 e=ecutedaffidavits admittin" participation in a "iven robber that an information therefor 1E=h. 2 was filed a"ainst them on Ma +, 5678, with themunicipal court of Basilan Cit 1Criminal Case No. 5**>2 and that, in compliance with warrants for their arrest then issued, the wereapprehended and detained in the sub9station, thus corroboratin" the testimon of prosecution witness 3a4ans Amenola, Carnain Asidinand Arip to the effect that allapattoh and &ernande; 1Pilnandi;2 were to"ether with them, in the aforementioned sub9station, when Teba" was maltreated and died therein, on %une >, 5678, as well as confirmin" Pollisco s statement, E=hibit TT958, before the Cit &iscal ofBasilan cit , on %une +5, 5678, admittin" that &ernande; was in the sub9station on %une 7, 5678, on account of the warrant of arrestadverted to. Throu"h the e=hibits in -uestion the prosecution sou"ht, also, to bolster up its theor that allapattoh and &ernande;disappeared from the sub9station after Teba" s death, because the main respondents herein ille"all released them to prevent them fromrevealin" the circumstances surroundin" said event.


4/203

*. #$hibits 00, 00%&, an! MM < These are s4etches of a human bod and pictures purportin" to show the points of entrance, as well as ofe=it, of two 1+2 bullets wounds found on the bod of Teba". Respondent %ud"e re!ected these e=hibits and did not allow 0r. RosalinoRe es, Chief of the Medico9/e"al ection of the National Bureau of 'nvesti"ation, to answer -uestions as4ed b the prosecution, toestablish that the tra!ectories of said bullets wounds were parallel to each other, which, the prosecution claims, would have beenimpossible had Teba" been alive when he sustained said wounds..

8. Respondent %ud"e sustained, also, the ob!ections to certain -uestions propounded to said 0r. Re es, to show that the in!uriessustained b Teba" in the lar"e intestines must have been inflicted when Teba" was dead alread , and did not allow 0r. Re es to drawlines on E=hibits '' and MM, indicatin" the connection between the points of entrance and those of e=it of said wounds.

6. #$hibits 1, 1%&, 1%' < These are records of the office of the Cit &iscal of Basilan Cit showin" that the %apanese rifle, E=hibit 3, tworounds of ammunitions and one empt shell were received b said @ffice from the Police 0epartment of Basilan Cit on %une 5*, 5678.These e=hibits were presented to show that said rifle tallies with the description thereof "iven b prosecution witness ona Amenola, in

his affidavit, dated %une 5>, 5678, when said weapon was still in the possession of respondent Pollisco, and hence, to establishAmenola s veracit .

/i4ewise, the followin" rebuttal evidence for the prosecution were re!ected b respondent %ud"e, vi;?

5. #$hibits 22 to 22%3 < These are dail records of events of the police department, /amitan 0istrict, Basilan Cit , includin" the Tipo9Tipo re"ion. The do not mention the 4illin" therein, b the police patrol, of an outlaw on %une 7, 5678, thereb contradictin" the reports1E=hs. 5+ and 5+9A2 of respondent Pollisco and #asbi about it. Respondent %ud"e did not allow the record cler4 of the Cit &iscal s officeto identif said e=hibits, upon the "round that it was too late to present him althou"h when the e=hibits were mar4ed b the prosecution itreserved the ri"ht to identif them as part of official records.

+. #$hibits PP, QQ to QQ%(< Respondent Pollisco had testified that on %une >, 5678, #ad!i Aisa in-uired about one Awalin that he toldAisa that Awalin was ta4en b Ma or Brown to the seat of the cit "overnment and that he 1Pollisco2 su""ested that 0atu Dndin" beadvised not to worr , because there was no evidence a"ainst Awalin. To impeach the veracit of Pollisco, the prosecution presented thee=hibits under consideration, for the same show that one 0on" Awalin 1who is different from Awalin Teba"2 was apprehended on Ma +*,5678, and released on bail on %une + , 5678 that Pollisco could not have truthfull informed Aisa on %une >, 5678, what 0on" Awalinhad been ta4en b Ma or Brown to the seat of the cit "overnment and that there was no evidence a"ainst him for he was then adetention prisoner and that Pollisco could not have had in mind, therefore, said 0on" Awalin as the Awalin about whom Aisa had


5/203

in-uired. 'ndeed, E=hibits TT95 to TT95) show that, testif in" before the Cit &iscal, respondent Pollisco said that he twice orderedPatrolman /acerna on %une >, 5678, to brin" Awalin Teba" to him 1Pollisco2 for investi"ation.

.#$hibits SS to SS%4 < These are the testimonies before the Cit &iscal, of defense witness Mohammad ali who, on cross

e=amination b the prosecution, denied havin" "iven it. Thus the predicate therefor was established b the prosecution which sou"htthereb to impeach ali s veracit .

>. #$hibits 55, 55%& to 55%'6 < These are the testimonies, before the Cit &iscal of the main respondents herein, who "ave a differentstor before respondent %ud"e. The prosecution thus sou"ht to impeach their veracit as witnesses in their own behalf, after la in" downthe predicate in the course of their cross e=amination.

7. #$hibits 77, 77%& to 77%( < These are sworn statements made b defendant #asbi before the Cit &iscal. The were presented inrebuttal, after la in" down the predicate, to impeach his testimon in court.

). E=hibits RR, RR95, and 95 < Fith these e=hibits the prosecution tried to rebut Pollisco s testimon to the effect that prosecution witness /ianson Arip had a "rud"e a"ainst him, he 1Pollisco2 havin" char"ed him with theft in the Cit &iscal s @ffice. 't appears from saide=hibits that Arip s affidavit, implicatin" Pollisco, was dated %une 8, 5678, whereas Pollisco s affidavit char"in" Arip with theft, was dated%une +G, 5678, so that said statement of Arip could not have been influenced b Pollisco ssubse8uent act.

'n contrast with the severe and ri"orous polic used b respondent %ud"e in dealin" with the aforementioned evidence for theprosecution, petitioner herein cites the liberalit with which the lower court admitted, as evidence for the defense, records of supposedachievements of the Tipo9Tipo sub9station 1E=hibits 6 to 69$, 5G to 5G9', 5* to 5*9C, 56 to 569A, +G to +G9' +5 and ++2, a con"ratulatorcommunication 1E=h. +>2, and a letter of commendation to a peace officer assi"ned thereto 1E=h. *2, includin" an article in the Philippine&ree Press 1E=hs. + and + 9A2.

Dpon a review of the record, we are full satisfied that the lower court had, not onl erred, but, also, committed a "rave abuse ofdiscretion in issuin" the resolutions complained of, in re!ectin" the aforementioned direct and rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, and innot permittin" the same to propound the -uestions, alread adverted to. 't is obvious to us that said direct and rebuttal evidence, as wellas the aforementioned -uestions, are relevant to the issues involved in Criminal Case No. )+*. Althou"h it is not possible to determine with precision, at this sta"e of the proceedin"s, how far said e=hibits ma affect the outcome of that case, it is elemental that all partiestherein are entitled to a reasonable opportunit to establish their respective pretense. 'n this connection it should be noted that, in the


6/203

li"ht of the alle"ations of the amended information in said case and of the records before us, the issue of the "uilt or innocence of theaccused therein is bound to hin"e heavil upon the veracit of the opposin" witnesses and the wei"ht attached to their respectivetestimon . #ence, the parties should be allowed a certain latitude in the presentation of their evidence lest the ma be so hampered thatthe ends of !ustice ma eventuall be defeated or appear to be defeated. The dan"er of leadin" to such result must be avoided,

particularl in cases of the nature, importance and si"nificance of the one under consideration.

Fith respect to the -uestion whether or not enator Roseller /im ma appear as counsel for the main respondents herein, as defendantsin said criminal case, the Constitution provides that no enator or Member of the #ouse of Representatives shall :appear as counsel ... inan criminal case wherein an officer or emplo ee of the $overnment is accused of an offense committed in relation of his office ... 1Art.H', ec. 5*, Const. of the Phil.2. The issue, therefore, is whether the defendants in Criminal case No. )*+ are :accused of an offensecommitted in relation: to their office.

A mere perusal of the amended information therein readil elicits an affirmative answer. 't is alle"ed in said amended information that

:/ero . Brown,City Mayor of Basilan City, as such, has or"ani;ed "roups of police patrol and civilian commandoes consistin" ofre"ular policemen and ... special policemen, appointed and provided b him with pistols and hi"h power "uns: and then :established acamp ... at Tipo9Tipo,: which is under his :command, ... supervision and control,: where his codefendants were stationed, entertainedcriminal complaints and conducted the correspondin" investi"ations, as well as assumed the authorit to arrest and detain persons without due process of law and without brin"in" them to the proper court, and that, in line with this set9up established b said Ma or ofBasilan Cit as such, and actin" upon his orders, his codefendants arrested and maltreated Awalin Teba", who died in conse-uencethereof.

't is apparent from these alle"ations that, althou"h public office is not an element of the crime of murder in abstract, as committed b themain respondents herein, accordin" to the amended information, the offense therein char"ed is intimatel connected with their respectiveoffices and was perpetrated while the were in the performance, thou"h improper or irre"ular, of their official functions. 'ndeed, the hadno personal motive to commit the crime and the would not have committed it had the not held their aforesaid offices. The co9defendants of respondent /ero . Brown, obe ed his instructions because he was their superior officer, as Ma or of Basilan Cit .

The case of Monllito 9s. Hilario an! Crisologo, 6G Phil., >6, relied upon b respondent %ud"e, in overrulin" the ob!ection of theprosecution to the appearance of enator Roseller /im, is not in point, for, as stated in the decision therein?


7/203

&rom the alle"ations of the information it does not appear that the official positions of the accused were connected with theoffense char"ed. 'n fact, the attorne s for the prosecution stated that the motives for the crimes were personal with politicalcharacter. 't does not even appear, nor is there assertion, that the crimes were committed b the defendants in line of dut or inthe performance of their official functions. 1Emphasis supplied.2

uch is not the situation obtainin" in the case at bar.

Fherefore, the rulin"s complained of are set aside and reversed and respondent %ud"e is hereb en!oined to admit the aforementioneddirect and rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, as well as to permit the formulation, of the -uestions alread referred to, with costsa"ainst the respondents herein. 't is so ordered.


8/203


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6 075 A8%(/ 15, 19 7

NATI I2A2 CORPUS, AURORA FONBUENA, OSIE PERALTA, CRESENCIA PA2UA, 2OMINA2OR BAUTISTA, LEOEPIFANIO CASTILLE OS AN2 E2GAR CASTILLE OS,petitioners,vs.TANO2BA AN OF THE PHILIPPINES, FISCAL UAN L. ILLANUE A, R., AN2 ESTEBAN MANGASER,respondents.

Si"plicio M. Se9illeja for respon!ent #. Mangaser.

R E @ / D T ' @ N

CORTES,J.:

Petitioners Natividad Corpu;, Aurora &onbuena, %osie Peralta, Cresencia Padua, 0ominador Bautista and /eola Neo" were members ofthe Citi;ens Election Committee of Caba, /a Dnion in the %anuar G, 568G elections petitioner Epifanio Castille!os was 0irector of theBureau of 0omestic Trade and petitioner Ed"ar Castille!os was then a candidate and later elected ma or in the same election. Privaterespondent Esteban Man"aser, an independent candidate for vice. ma or of the same municipalit sent a letter to President &erdinand E.Marcos char"in" the petitioners with violation of the 56*8 Election Code, specificall for electioneerin" andIor campai"nin" inside thevotin" centers durin" the election. @n instruction from the Commission on Elections 1C@ME/EC2 the Re"ional Election 0irector of an&ernando, /a Dnion, conducted a formal investi"ation and on eptember +6, 5685 submitted its report recommendin" to the C@ME/ECthe dismissal of the complaint. @n @ctober +6, 5685, private respondent Man"aser formall withdrew his char"es filed with the


9/203

C@ME/EC statin" his intention to refile it with the Tanodba an. @n November +), 5685 the C@ME/EC dismissed the complaint forinsufficienc of evidence.

ubse-uentl the assistant provincial fiscal started a preliminar investi"ation of a complaint filed b Man"aser with the Tanodba an

a"ainst the same parties and on the same char"es previousl dismissed b the C@ME/EC. The C@ME/EC /e"al Assistance @fficeentered its appearance for the respondents 1e=cept 0irector Epifanio Castille!os and Ed"ar Castille!os2 and moved for dismissal of thecomplaint. The motion was denied. The TAN@0BA3AN assertin" e=clusive authorit to prosecute the case, stated in a letter to theC@ME/EC Chairman that a law er of the C@ME/EC if not properl deputi;ed as a Tanodba an prosecutor has no authorit to conductpreliminar investi"ations and prosecute offenses committed b C@ME/EC officials in relation to their office. 1Rollo, p. 5G+2 A motion forreconsideration was denied. #ence, the present petition for certiorari and preliminar in!unction. This Court after considerin" thepleadin"s filed and deliberatin" on the issues raised considered the comment of the olicitor $eneral an Answer to the petition andconsidered the case submitted for decision.

'n the landmar4 case of the e esus 9. People 1No. /9)5668, &ebruar +8, 568 , 5+G CRA *)G2 this Court dealt with the followin"-uestion of first impression relative to the rival claim of !urisdiction over election offenses committed b public officials?

Fhich of these entities have the power to investi"ate, prosecute and tr election offenses committed b a public officer inrelation to his office < the Commission on Elections and the Court of &irst 'nstance 1now the re"ional trial court2 or theTanodba an and the andi"anba anJ

This Court re!ected the assertion that no tribunal other than the andi"anba an has !urisdiction over offenses committed b public officersand emplo ees in relation to their office, thus?

The "rant to the C@ME/EC of the power, amon" others, to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct ofelection and the concomittant authorit to investi"ate and prosecute election offenses is not without compellin" reason.The evident constitutional intendment in bestowin" this power to the C@ME/EC is to insure the free, orderl and honestconduct of elections, failure of which would result in the frustration of the true will of the people and ma4e a mere 'dleceremon of the sacred ri"ht and dut of ever -ualified citi;en to vote. To divest the C@ME/EC of the authorit toinvesti"ate and prosecute offenses committed b public officials in relation to their office would thus seriousl impair itseffectiveness in achievin" this clear constitutional mandate.


10/203

&rom a careful scrutin of the constitutional provisions relied upon b the andi"anba an, Fe perceived neither e=plicitnor implicit "rant to it and its prosecutin" arm, the Tanodba an, of the authorit to investi"ate, prosecute and hear electionoffenses committed b public officers in relation to their office as contradistin"uished from the clear and cate"oricalbestowal of said authorit and !urisdiction upon the C@ME/EC and the courts of first instance under ections 58+ and

58>, respectivel , of the Election Code of 56*8.

An e=amination of the provisions of the Constitution and the Election Code of 56*8 reveals the clear intention to place in the C@ME/ECe=clusive !urisdiction to investi"ate and prosecute election offenses committed b an person, whether private individual or public officeror emplo ee, and in the latter instance, irrespective of whether the offense is committed in relation to his official duties or not. 'n other words, it is the nature of the offense and not the personalit of the offender that matters. As lon" as the offense is an election offense !urisdiction over the same rests e=clusivel with the C@ME/EC, in view of its all9embracin" power over the conduct of elections.

F#ERE&@RE, inasmuch as the char"e of electioneerin" filed a"ainst the petitioners had alread been dismissed b the C@ME/EC forinsufficienc of evidence, the petition is hereb "ranted and the complaint filed b private respondent bein" investi"ated anew b theTanodba an char"in" the petitioners with the same election offense, 0' M' E0.

@ @R0ERE0.


11/203


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No). 111771-77 No:$ $% 9, 1993

ANTONIO L. SANCHE ,petitioner,vs.T;$ Ho*o%a /$ HARRIET O. 2EMETRIOU


12/203

the contrar has not been proved. /i4e an other person accused of an offense, he is entitled to the full and vi"ilant protection of the Billof Ri"hts.

anche; has brou"ht this petition to challen"e the order of the respondent !ud"e den in" his motion to -uash the informations for rape

with homicide filed a"ainst him and si= other persons. Fe shall treat it as we would an other suit filed b an liti"ant hopin" to obtain a !ust and impartial !ud"ment from this Court.

The pertinent facts are as follows?

@n %ul +8, 566 , the Presidential Anti9Crime Commission re-uested the filin" of appropriate char"es a"ainst several persons, includin"the petitioner, in connection with the rape9sla of Mar Eileen armenta and the 4illin" of Allan $ome;.

Actin" on this re-uest, the Panel of tate Prosecutors of the 0epartment of %ustice conducted a preliminar investi"ation on Au"ust 6,566 . Petitioner anche; was not present but was represented b his counsel, Att . Marciano Brion, %r.

@n Au"ust 5+, 566 , PNP Commander Re= Piad issued an :invitation: to the petitioner re-uestin" him to appear for investi"ation atCamp Hicente /im in Canluban", /a"una. 't was served on anche; in the mornin" of Au"ust 5 ,566 , and he was immediatel ta4en tothe said camp.

At a confrontation that same da , anche; was positivel identified b Aurelio Centeno, and P@ ''' Hivencio Malabanan, who bothe=ecuted confessions implicatin" him as a principal in the rape9sla of armenta and the 4illin" of $ome;. The petitioner was then placedon :arrest status: and ta4en to the 0epartment of %ustice in Manila.

The respondent prosecutors immediatel conducted an in-uest upon his arrival, with Att . alvador Panelo as his counsel.

After the hearin", a warrant of arrest was served on anche;. This warrant was issued on Au"ust 5 , 566 , b %ud"e Enrico A. /an;anasof the Re"ional Trial Court of Manila, Branch *, in connection with Criminal Cases Nos. 6 95+>) > to 6 95+>) * for violation of ection8, in relation to ection 5, of R.A. No. )*5 . anche; was forthwith ta4en to the C' 0etention Center, Camp Crame, where he remainsconfined.


13/203

@n Au"ust 5), 566 , the respondent prosecutors filed with the Re"ional Trial Court of Calamba, /a"una, seven informations char"in"Antonio /. anche;, /uis Corcolon, Ro"elio Corcolon, Pepito awit, Baldwin Brion, %r., $eor"e Medialdea and (oilo Ama with the rapeand 4illin" of Mar Eileen armenta.

@n Au"ust +), 566 , %ud"e Eusta-uio P. to. 0omin"o of that court issued a warrant for the arrest of all the accused, includin" thepetitioner, in connection with the said crime.

The respondent ecretar of %ustice subse-uentl e=pressed his apprehension that the trial of the said cases mi"ht result in amiscarria"e of !ustice because of the tense and partisan atmosphere in /a"una in favor of the petitioner and the relationship of anemplo ee, in the trial court with one of the accused. This Court thereupon ordered the transfer of the venue of the seven cases to Pasi",Metro Manila, where the were raffled to respondent %ud"e #arriet 0emetriou.

@n eptember 5G, 566 , the seven informations were amended to include the 4illin" of Allan $ome; as an a""ravatin" circumstance.

@n that same date, the petitioner filed a motion to -uash the informations substantiall on the "rounds now raised in this petition. @neptember 5 , 566 , after oral ar"uments, the respondent !ud"e denied the motion. anche; then filed with this Court the instant petition

forcertiorari and prohibition with pra er for a temporar restrainin" orderIwrit of in!unction.

The petitioner ar"ues that the seven informations filed a"ainst him should be -uashed because? 52 he was denied the ri"ht to presentevidence at the preliminar investi"ation +2 onl the @mbudsman had the competence to conduct the investi"ation 2 his warrantlessarrest is ille"al and the court has therefore not ac-uired !urisdiction over him, >2 he is bein" char"ed with seven homicides arisin" fromthe death of onl two persons 72 the informations are discriminator because the do not include Teofilo Al-ue;a and Ed"ardo /avadiaand )2 as a public officer, he can be tried for the offense onl b the andi"anba an.

The respondents submitted a Comment on the petition, to which we re-uired a Repl from the petitioner within a non9e=tendible period offive da s. 1 The Repl was filed five da s late. The Court ma consider his non9compliance an implied admission of the respondentsar"uments or a loss of interest in prosecutin" his petition, which is a "round for its dismissal. Nevertheless, we shall disre"ard thisprocedural lapse and proceed to discuss his petition on the basis of the ar"uments before us.

5he Preli"inary 0n9estigation.


14/203

The records of the hearin"s held on Au"ust 6 and 5 , 566 , belie the petitioner s contention that he was not accorded the ri"ht to presentcounter9affidavits.

0urin" the preliminar investi"ation on Au"ust 6, 566 , the petitioner s counsel, Att . Marciano Brion, manifested that his client was

waivin" the presentation of a counter9affidavit, thus?

Att . Brion, %r.?

KFLe manifest that after reviewin" them there is nothin" to rebut or countermand all these statements as far as Ma oranche; is concerned, Fe are not "oin" to submit an counter9affidavit.

AC P (u o to Att . Brion?

=== === ===

. o far, there are no other statements.

A. 'f there is none then, we will not submit an counter9affidavit because we believe there is nothin" torebut or countermand with all these statements.

. o, ou are waivin" our submission of counter9affidavitJ

A. 3es, our honor, unless there are other witnesses who will come up soon. 3

Nonetheless, the head of the Panel of Prosecutors, respondent %ovencito (u o, told Att . Brion that he could still file a counter9affidavit upto Au"ust +*, 566 . No such counter9affidavit was filed.

0urin" the hearin" on Au"ust 5 , 566 , respondent (u o furnished the petitioner s counsel, this time Att . alvador Panelo, with copiesof the sworn statements of Centeno and Malabanan, and told him he could submit counter9affidavits on or before Au"ust +*, 566 . Thefollowin" e=chan"e ensued?

AC P (u o?


15/203

&or the record, we are furnishin" to ou the sworn statement of witness Aurelio Centeno Ro=as and thesworn statement of P@ Hivencio Malabanan An"eles.

0o ' understand from ou that ou are a"ain waivin" the submission of counter9affidavitJ

Att . Panelo?

3es.

AC P (u o?

o, insofar as the respondent, Ma or Antonio anche; is concerned, this case is submitted for resolution.4

@n the other hand, there is no support for the petitioner s subse-uent manifestation that his counsel, Att . Brion, was not notified of thein-uest held on Au"ust 5 , 566 , and that he was not furnished with the affidavits sworn to on that date b Hivencio Malabanan andAurelio Centeno, or with their supplemental affidavits dated Au"ust 57, 566 . Moreover, the above9-uoted e=cerpt shows that thepetitioner s counsel at the hearin" held on Au"ust 5 , 566 , was not Att . Brion but Att . Panelo.

The petitioner was present at that hearin" and he never disowned Att . Panelo as his counsel. 0urin" the entire proceedin"s, heremained -uiet and let this counsel spea4 and ar"ue on his behalf. 't was onl in his tard Repl that he has suddenl bestirred himselfand would now -uestion his representation b this law er as unauthori;ed and inofficious.

ection , Para"raph 1d2, Rule 55+ of the Rules of Court, provides that if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or, if subpoenaed, does

not submit counter9affidavits, the investi"atin" officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented b the complainant.

%ust as the accused ma renounce the ri"ht to be present at the preliminar investi"ation 5, so ma he waive the ri"ht to present counter9affidavits or an other evidence in his defense.

At an rate, it is settled that the absence of a preliminar investi"ation does not impair the validit of the information or otherwise renderthe same defective and neither does it affect the !urisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a "round for -uashin" theinformation. 6


16/203

'f no preliminar investi"ation has been held, or if it is flawed, the trial court ma , on motion of the accused, order an investi"ation orreinvesti"ation and hold the proceedin"s in the criminal case in abe ance.7 'n the case at bar, however, the respondent !ud"e saw noreason or need for such a step. &indin" no arbitrariness in her factual conclusions, we shall defer to her !ud"ment.

uris!iction of the 2"bu!s"an

'nvo4in" the case of eloso 9. o"ingo , the petitioner submits that the proceedin"s conducted b the 0epartment of %ustice are nulland void because it had no !urisdiction over the case. #is claim is that it is the @ffice of the @mbudsman that is vested with the power toconduct the investi"ation of all cases involvin" public officers li4e him, as the municipal ma or of Calauan, /a"una.

The @mbudsman is indeed empowered under ection 57, para"raph 152 of R.A. )**G to investi"ate and prosecute, an ille"al act oromission of an public official. #owever, as we held onl two ears a"o in the case of Aguinal!o 9. o"agas , 9 this authorit :is not ane=clusive authorit but rather a shared or concurrent authorit in. respect of the offense char"ed.:

Petitioners finall assert that the information and amended information filed in this case needed the approval of the@mbudsman. 't is not disputed that the information and amended information here did not have the approval of the@mbudsman. #owever, we do not believe that such approval was necessar at all. 'neloso 9. o"ingo, 565 CRA. 7>71566G2, the Court held that the @mbudsman has authorit to investi"ate char"es of ille"al or omissions on the part of anpublic official, i.e., an crime imputed to a public official. 't must, however, be pointed out that the authorit of the@mbudsman to investi"ate :an Kille"alL act or omission of an public official: 1565 CRA at 77G2isnot an e$clusi9e authorit but rather a shared or concurrent authorit in respect of the offense here char"ed, i.e., thecrime of sedition. Thus, the non9involvement of the office of the @mbudsman in the present case does not have anadverse le"al conse-uence upon the authorit the panel of prosecutors to file and prosecute the information or amendedinformation.

'n fact, other investi"ator a"encies, of the "overnment such as the 0epartment of %ustice, in connection with the char"e ofsedition,10 and the Presidential Commission on $ood $overnment, in ill9"otten wealth cases, 11 ma conduct the investi"ation,

5he Arrest

Fas petitioner anche; arrested on Au"ust 5 , 566 J


17/203

:Arrest: is defined under ection 5, Rule 55 of the Rules of Court as the ta4in" of a person into custod in order that he ma be bound toanswer for the commission of an offense. Dnder ection + of the same Rule, an arrest is effected b an actual restraint of the person tobe arrested or b his voluntar submission to the custod of the person ma4in" the arrest.

Application of actual force, manual touchin" of the bod , ph sical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not, re-uired. 't is enou"hthat 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 beliefand impression that submission is necessar .1

The petitioner was ta4en to Camp Hicente /im, Canluban", /a"una, b virtue of a letter9invitation issued b PNP Commander Re= Piadre-uestin" him to appear at the said camp for investi"ation.

'n Babst 9. ;ational 0ntelligence Boar! 13 this Court declared?

Be that as it ma , it is not idle to note that ordinaril , an invitation to attend a hearin" and answer some -uestions, whichthe person invited ma heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not ille"al or constitutionall ob!ectionable. Dnder certaincircumstances, however, such an invitation can easil assume a different appearance. Thus,where the in9itation co"esfro" a powerful group co"pose! pre!o"inantly of ran:ing "ilitary officers issued at a time when the countr has !ustemer"ed from martial rule and when the suspension of the privile"e of the writ ofhabeas corpus has not entirel beenlifted, andthe !esignate! interrogation site is a "ilitary ca"p , the same can be easil ta4en,not as a strictly 9oluntaryin9itation which it purports to be, but as an authoritati9e co""an! which one can onl def at his peril. . . . 1Emphasissupplied2

'n the case at bar, the invitation came from a hi"h9ran4in" militar official and the investi"ation of anche; was to be made at a militar

camp. Althou"h in the "uise of a re-uest, it was obviousl a command or an order of arrest that the petitioner could hardl he e=pected todef . 'n fact, apparentl cowed b the :invitation,: he went without protest 1and in informal clothes and slippers onl 2 with the officers whohad come to fetch him.

't ma not be amiss to observe that under R.A. No. *> 8, the re-uisites of a :custodial investi"ation: are applicable even to a person notformall arrested but merel :invited: for -uestionin".


18/203

't should li4ewise be noted that at Camp Hicente /im, the petitioner was placed on :arrest status: after he was pointed to b Centeno andMalabanan as the person who first raped Mar Eileen armenta. Respondent (u o himself ac4nowled"ed durin" the Au"ust 5 , 566hearin" that, on the basis of the sworn statements of the two state witnesses, petitioner had been :arrested.:

Fe a"ree with the petitioner that his arrest did not come under ection 7, Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, providin" as follows?

ec. 7. Arrest without warrant< when lawful . < A peace officer or a private person ma , without a warrant, arrest a person?

1a2 Fhen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actuall committin", or is attemptin" to commit anoffense

1b2 Fhen an offense has in fact !ust been committed and he has personal 4nowled"e of facts indicatin" that the person tobe arrested has committed it and

1c2 Fhen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escapes from a penal establishment or place where he isservin" final !ud"ment or temporaril confined while his case is pendin", or has escaped while bein" transferred from oneconfinement to another.

't is not denied that the arrestin" officers were not present when the petitioner alle"edl participated in the 4illin" of Allan $ome; and therape9sla of Mar Eileen armenta. Neither did the have an personal 4nowled"e that the petitioner was responsible therefor becausethe basis of the arrest was the sworn statements of Centeno and Malabanan. Moreover, as the rape and 4illin" of armenta alle"edltoo4 place on %une +89%une +6, 566 , or fort 9si= da s before the date of the arrest, it cannot be said that the offense had :in fact !ustbeen committed: when the petitioner was arrested.

The ori"inal warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless ille"al. Nevertheless, the Re"ional Trial Court lawfull ac-uired !urisdictionover the person of the petitioner b virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on Au"ust +), 566 a"ainst him and the other accused inconnection with the rape9sla cases. 't was belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless le"al.

Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial court still lawfull ac-uired !urisdiction over the person ofthe petitioner. The rule is that if the accused ob!ects to the !urisdiction of the court over his person, he ma move to -uash the


19/203

information, but onl on that "round. 'f, as in this case, the accused raises other "rounds in the motion to -uash, he is deemed to have waived that ob!ection and to have submitted his person to the !urisdiction of that court. 14

The Court notes that on Au"ust 5 , 566 , after the petitioner was unlawfull arrested, %ud"e /an;anas issued a warrant of arrest a"ainst

Antonio /. anche; in connection with Criminal Cases Nos. 6 95+>) > to 6 95+>) * for violation of R.A No. )*5 .15

Pendin" theissuance of the warrant of arrest for the rape9sla cases, this first warrant served as the initial !ustification for his detention.

The Court also adverts to its uniform rulin" that the filin" of char"es, and the issuance of the correspondin" warrant of arrest, a"ainst aperson invalidl detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least den him the ri"ht to be released because of suchdefect. Applicable b analo" to the case at bar is Rule 5G+ ection > of the Rules of Court that?

ec, >.=hen writ is not allowe! or !ischarge authori>e! . < 'f it appears that the person alle"ed to be restrained of hislibert is in the custod of an officer under process issued b a court or !ud"e or b virtue of a !ud"ment or order of a courtof record, and that the court or !ud"e had !urisdiction to issue the process, render the !ud"ment, or ma4e the order, the writshall not be allowed or if the !urisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be dischar"ed b reason ofan informalit or defect in the process, !ud"ment, or order. Nor shall, an thin" in this rule be held to authori;e thedischar"e of a person char"ed with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines or of a person sufferin" imprisonmentunder lawful !ud"ment.

'n one case, 16 the petitioner, sued onhabeas corpus on the "round that she had been arrested b virtue of a %ohn 0oe warrant. 'n theirreturn, the respondents declared that a new warrant specificall namin" her had been issued, thus validatin" her detention. Fhilefrownin" 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 there-uirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Court re"ardin" the particular description of the person to be arrested.Fhile the first warrant was un-uestionabl void, bein" a "eneral warrant, release of the petitioner for that reason will be afutile act as it will be followed b her immediate re9arrest pursuant to the new and valid warrant, returnin" her to the sameprison she will !ust have left. This Court will not participate in such a meanin"less charade.

The same doctrine has been consistentl followed b the Court,17 more recentl in the7"il case. 1


20/203


21/203

Ever one of the seven accused is bein" char"ed separatel for actuall rapin" armenta and later 4illin" her instead of merel assistin"the petitioner in rapin" and then sla in" her. The separate informations filed a"ainst each of them alle"e that each of the sevensuccessive rapes is comple=ed b the subse-uent sla in" of armenta and a""ravated b the 4illin" of Allan $ome; b her sevenattac4ers. The separate rapes were committed in succession b the seven accused, culminatin" in the sla in" of armenta.

't is of course absurd to su""est that Mar Eileen armenta and Allan $ome; were 4illed seven times, but the informations do not ma4esuch a su""estion. 't is the petitioner who does so and is thus hoist b his own petard.

5he Allege! iscri"ination

The char"e of discrimination a"ainst the petitioner because of the non9inclusion of Teofilo Al-ue;a and Ed"ardo /avadia in theinformations must also be dismissed.

Fhile the prosecutin" officer is re-uired b law to char"e all those who in his opinion, appear to be "uilt , he nevertheless cannot becompelled to include in the information a person a"ainst whom he believes no sufficient evidence of "uilt e=ists.19 The appreciation of theevidence involves the use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor, and we do not find in the case at bar a clear showin" b thepetitioner of a "rave abuse of such discretion.0

The decision of the prosecutor ma be reversed or modified b the ecretar of %ustice or in special cases b the President of thePhilippines. 1 But even this Court cannot order the prosecution of a person a"ainst whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidenceto support at least a pri"a facie case. The courts tr and absolve or convict the accused but as a rule have no part in the initial decisionto prosecute him.

The possible e=ception is where there is an unmista4able showin" of a "rave abuse of discretion that will !ustif !udicial intrusion into theprecincts of the e=ecutive. But in such a case the proper remed to call for such e=ception is a petition for"an!a"us, not certiorari orprohibition. Moreover, before resortin" to this relief, the part see4in" the inclusion of another person as a co9accused in the same casemust first avail itself of other ade-uate remedies such as the filin" of a motion for such inclusion. 3

At an rate, it is a preposterous contention that because no char"es have been filed a"ainst Al-ue;a and /avadia, the char"es a"ainstthe petitioner and his co9accused should also be dropped.


22/203

uris!iction of the San!iganbayan

The petitioner ar"ued earlier that since most of the accused were incumbent public officials or emplo ees at the time of the alle"edcommission of the crimes, the cases a"ainst them should come under the !urisdiction of the andi"anba an and not of the re"ular courts.

This contention was withdrawn in his Repl but we shall discuss it !ust the same for the "uidance of all those concerned.ection >, para"raph 1a2 of P.0. No, 5)G), as amended b P.0. No.58)5, provides?

ec. >. uris!iction. < The andi"anba an shall e=ercise?

a2 E=clusive ori"inal !urisdiction in all cases involvin"?

152 Hiolations of Republic Act No. G56, as amended, otherwise 4nown as the Anti9$raft and CorruptPractices Act, Republic Act No. 5 *6, and Chapter '', ection +, Title H'' of the Revised Penal Code?

1+2 @ther offenses or felonies committed b public officers and emplo eesin relation to their office,includin" those emplo ed in "overnment9owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or comple=ed with other crimes, where the penalt prescribed b law is hi"her than prision correccional or imprisonmentfor si= 1)2 ears, or a fine of P),GGG.GG. . . . 1Emphasis supplied2

The crime of rape with homicide with which the petitioner stands char"ed obviousl does not fall under para"raph 152, which deals with"raft and corruption cases. Neither is it covered b para"raph 1+2 because it is not an offense committed in relation to the office of thepetitioner.

'n Montilla 9, Hilario, 4 this Court described the :offense committed in relation to the office: as follows?

KTLhe relation between the crime and the office contemplated b the Constitution is, in our opinion, direct and notaccidental. To fall into the intent of the Constitution, the relation has to be such that, in the le"al sense, the offense cannote=ist without the office. 'n other words, the office must be a constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute, suchas, for instance, the crimes defined and punished in Chapter Two to i=, Title even, of the Revised Penal Code.


23/203

Public office is not of the essence of murder. The ta4in" of human life is either murder or homicide whether done b aprivate citi;en or public servant, and the penalt is the same e=cept when the perpetrator. bein" a public functionar too4advanta"e of his office, as alle"ed in this case, in which event the penalt is increased.

But the use or abuse of office does not adhere to the crime as an element and even as an a""ravatin" circumstance, itsmaterialit arises not from the alle"ations but on the proof, not from the fact that the criminals are public officials but fromthe 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 ma orbecause public office is not an essential element of the crime char"ed. The offense can stand independentl of the office. Moreover, it isnot even alle"ed in the information that the commission of the crime char"ed was intimatel connected with the performance of thepetitioner s official functions to ma4e it fall under the e=ception laid down inPeople 9. Montejo. 5

'n that case, a cit ma or and several detectives were char"ed with murder for the death of a suspect as a result of a :third de"ree:investi"ation held at a police substation. The appearance of a senator as their counsel was -uestioned b the prosecution on the "roundthat he was inhibited b the Constitution from representin" them because the were accused of an offense committed in relation to theiroffice. The Court a"reed. 't held that even if their position was not an essential in"redient of the offense, there was nevertheless anintimate connection between the office and the offense, as alle"ed in the information, that brou"ht it within the definition of an offense:committed in relation to the public office.:

As Chief %ustice Concepcion said?

't is apparent from these alle"ations that, althou"h public office is not an element of the crime of murder in abstract, as

committed b the main respondents herein, accordin" to the amended information, the offense therein char"edis inti"ately connecte! with their respective offices and was perpetrated while the were in the performance, thou"himproper or irre"ular, of their official functions. 'ndeed the had no personal motive to commit the crime and the wouldnot have committed it had the not held their aforesaid offices. The co9defendants of respondent /ero . Brown, obe edhis instructions because he was their superior officer, as Ma or of Basilan Cit . 1Emphasis supplied2.


24/203

Fe have read the informations in the case at bar and find no alle"ation therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to thepetitioner was connected with the dischar"e of his functions as municipal ma or or that there is an :intimate connection: between theoffense and his office. 't follows that the said crime, bein" an ordinar offense, is triable b the re"ular courts and not the andi"anba an.

ConclusionAs above demonstrated, all of the "rounds invo4ed b the petitioner are not supported b the facts and the applicable law and !urisprudence. The must, therefore, all be re!ected. 'n conse-uence, the respondent !ud"e, who has started the trial of the criminal casesa"ainst the petitioner and his co9accused, ma proceed therewith without further hindrance.

't remains to stress that the decision we ma4e toda is not a decision on the merits of the criminal cases bein" tried below. These willhave to be decided b the respondent !ud"e in accordance with the evidence that is still bein" received. At this time, there is et no basisfor !ud"ment, onl uninformed con!ecture. The Court will caution a"ainst such irrelevant public speculations as the can be based onl onimperfect 4nowled"e if not officious i"norance.

F#ERE&@RE, the petition is 0' M' E0. The respondent !ud"e is 0'RECTE0 to continue with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 5G55>5,5G55>+, 5G55> , 5G55>>, 5G55>7, 5G55>) and 5G55>* and to decide them with deliberate dispatch.

@ @R0ERE0.


25/203


ManilaEN BANC

G.R. No. 71163-65 No:$ $% 9, 1990

CARLITO P. BON2OC,petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE SAN2IGANBA AN AN2 THE HONORABLE TANO2BA AN,respondents.

/oren>o G. 5i"bol for petitioner.

NAR ASA,J.:

ection > 1para"raph 2 of Presidential 0ecree No. 5)G), as amended, provides in part that1

'n case private individuals are char"ed as co9principals, accomplices or accessories with public officers or emplo ees,

includin" those emplo ed in "overnment9owned or controlled corporations,they shoul! be trie! jointly with sai! publicofficers or e"ployees.

Fhether or not compliance with this re-uirement is mandator in ever instance, and is indeed so essential as to cause theandi"anba an to lose !urisdiction over a specific criminal case in the event of its non9fulfillment, is the main issue presented b the

special civil action ofcertiorari at bar. The issue is raised in the conte=t of the undisputed facts hereunder narrated.

Two 1+2 emplo ees of the Central Ban4 < Manuel Halentino and %esus Estacio < and nine 162 private individuals, were char"ed withseveral felonies of estafa thru falsification of public !ocu"ents in three 1 2 separate informations filed b the Tanodba an with the


26/203

andi"anba an on April 57, 568+. The actions were doc4eted as Criminal Cases Numbered 76>6 to 7675. The were assi"ned to theecond 0ivision of the andi"anba an.

Before the prosecution rested its case, the Tanodba an filed with the andi"anba an on Au"ust + , 568>, another set of three 1 2

indictments, this time a"ainst Carlito P. Bondoc 1Assistant Mana"er of the $reenhills Branch of C'T'BAN 2 and Ro"elio Hicente, also aprivate individual, char"in" them with the same crimes involved in Cases No. 76>6 to 7675 as principals by in!ispensable cooperation.The actions a"ainst Bondoc and Hicente were doc4eted as Criminal Cases Numbered 6 >6 to 6 75. The were assi"ned to the Third0ivision of the andi"anba an.

Bondoc moved to -uash the informations on %anuar , 5687 on the basic theor that as a private individual char"ed as co9principal with"overnment emplo ees, he should be tried !ointl with the latter pursuant to ection > 1para"raph 2 of P0 5)G), as amended,suprahence, the separate proceedin"s commenced a"ainst him were invalid, for lac4 of !urisdiction of the andi"anba an over the offensesand his person.

The Third 0ivision denied Bondoc s motion to -uash, b Resolution dated &ebruar ++, 5687. 't ruled that 1a2 the !oint trial of privateindividuals and public emplo ees char"ed as co9principals, dealt with in the cited provision of law, is not a !urisdictional re-uirement 1b2Bondoc s theor would practicall ma4e the Court s :!urisdiction over a private individual char"ed as co9principal, accomplice oraccessor with a public officer or emplo ee dependent upon such private individual: 1as b evadin" service of le"al processes until :!ointtrial is no lon"er feasible:2 and 1c2 it is the intention of the law, manifested in the same ection >, :to avert split !urisdiction 1and2 thusavoid multiplicit of suits.:

Bondoc moved for reconsideration on March >, 5687. #is motion was denied b Resolution dated March +8, 5687. #owever, in order toobviate his ob!ection to a separate trial, which was the principal basis of his motion to -uash, the Third 0ivision, in the same resolution,

referred Bondoc s cases 1No. 6 >6 to 6 752 to the econd 0ivision for consolidation with Cases Numbered 76>6 to 7675. 3

But b that time, the trial of Criminal Cases No. 76>6 to 7675 had been terminated. The econd 0ivision thus resolved, on %une >,5687, 4 to den the proposed consolidation of the actions and to return Criminal Cases No. 6 >6 to 6 75 to the Third 0ivision. 'n itsResolution, the econd 0ivision also made the followin" observation, to wit?

'n @ur resolution dated April 6,5687, Fe accepted the transfer of these cases and directed the accused and counsel toascertain the advisabilit of havin" them consolidated and !ointl tried with Criminal Cases Nos. 76>6 to 7675 which have


27/203

been previousl ordered reopened. #owever, at the hearin" held on April 5, 5687, counsel for accused Ro"elio $. Hicentemanifested that there is no possibilit of the instant cases bein" consolidated with Criminal Cases Nos. 76>6 to 7675 orthe adoption of prosecution s evidence adduced in said cases, as well as the fact that said accused has a pendin" motionfor reinvesti"ation with the5ano!bayan ...

@n receivin" the criminal cases bac4 from the econd 0ivision, the Third 0ivision set the cases for arrai"nment and trial on Au"ust 5 and+, 5687.

@n %une +), 5687, Bondoc filed with this Court the petition forcertiorariand prohibition at bar.

#e ar"ues that the andi"anba an acted with "rave abuse of discretion in see4in" to tr him separatel from the Central Ban4emplo ees?

5. 'n accordance with the clear phraseolo" of para"raph , ection >, P0 5)G), it is re-uired that heshall be tried !ointl with the "overnment emplo ees involved in the same offenses, namel ? Manuel Halentino and %esus Estacio thelan"ua"e is mandator , the re-uirement !urisdictional.

+. Bein" mandator and !urisdictional, the provision should be "iven a strict construction, citin" American authorities,5 tothe effect that if mandator provisions prescribed b law are not followed, the proceedin"s to winch the relate are ille"aland void.

. ince the andi"anba an is a special court, with !urisdiction over special cases which are removed from the !urisdictionof re"ular courts and since the "overnin" law allows onl one appeal from its !ud"ments of conviction and therefore the

defendant s chances of eventual ac-uittal is thereb lessened, the law creatin" said andi"anba an should be sub!ect tostrict interpretation because in dero"ation of "eneral !urisdiction and of ri"hts of individuals.6

>. 'n sum, before the andi"anba an ma lawfull tr a private individual under P0 5)G), the followin" re-uisites must besatisfied?

a2 he must be char"ed with a public officerIemplo ee, and


28/203

b2 he must be tried !ointl .

@therwise, ordinar courts should have !urisdiction. An other interpretation would render the provision in -uestionuseless, meanin"less and nu"ator .

7. The Third 0ivision itself reco"ni;ed the need for a !oint trial when it referred his cases to the econd 0ivision forconsolidation.

). ince a !oint trial was then alread impossible, said mandator and !urisdictional provision can no lon"er be complied with therefore, the andi"anba an cannot e=ercise !urisdiction over the offense and the person of the petitioner.

*. Dnder these circumstances, the petitioner has a ri"ht to be tried b civil courts where his chances of ac-uittal are"reater considerin" that therein, there are at least two levels of appeal.

8. The prosecution should have amended the informations in Criminal Cases No. 76>6 to 7675 to include Bondoc asadditional accused 1this bein" onl an amendment in form2 then it could as4 for suspension of the proceedin"s, so theevidence can be re9introduced as a"ainst Bondoc.

6. &inall , the onl public emplo ee char"ed in Criminal Cases 76>697675 is !anitor9messen"er, Estacio. The other CentralBan4 emplo ee, Halentino, had alread been dischar"ed as a state witness. #e 1Bondoc2 was bein" made to stand trial inthe andi"anba an simpl because an :errand bo : in the Central Ban4 has also been accused of some complicit in thecrime.

The olicitor $eneral, for his part 1 2, P0 5)G) merel prescribes the procedure when a private individual is char"ed with a public officer oremplo ee once !urisdiction is ac-uired, it is not lost b procedural error 1Ramos, et al., v. CB, >5 CRA 7)7 0io-uino v. Cru;, et al., 55)

CRA >752.

ection > of Presidential 0ecree No. 5)G) vests the andi"an9ba an with e=clusive ori"inal !urisdiction over specific crimes and, as theandi"anba an has pointed out,supra, provides a"ainst split !urisdiction as re"ards the civil liabilit arisin" from the crime. 't declaresthat the andi"anba an shall have of P0 5)G) above cited, i.e., prision correccional or si= ears, or a fine of P),GGG.GG.10 Each offense istherefore within the e=clusive ori"inal !urisdiction of the andi"anba an.

't is indisputable that the andi"anba an ac-uired !urisdiction of the offenses char"ed in the informations a"ainst Bondoc and his co9accused, based on the nature of the crimes as described in the indictments and the penalt prescribed therefor b law. Alsoincontrovertible is that the andi"anba an ac-uired !urisdiction of the persons of the accused throu"h their arrest b virtue of a warrant,or voluntar submission to the Court s authorit .

't is true that the law re-uires that Bondoc and Hicente, as private individuals char"ed as co9principals with public officers or emplo ees,:be tried !ointl with said public officers or emplo ees.: $iven the peculiar circumstances of their cases, i.e., the 1Bondoc and Hicente2 were not investi"ated and indicted until lon" after the criminal proceedin"s a"ainst their co9principals had commenced, and the latter scases had alread been submitted for decision when Bondoc s and Hicente s own cases came up for trial9the -uestion that now raises is whether or not the declaration of the andi"anba an that it was no lon"er possible or le"all feasible to tr them !ointl with the"overnment emplo ees accused of the same offenses, had the effect of causin" the andi"anba an to lose !urisdiction over Bondoc scases, and whether or not, as a conse-uence, those cases became co"ni;able b the re"ular courts and should be transferred theretofor trial and ad!ud"ment.

't must at once be evident that the seemin" impossibilit of a !oint trial cannot and does not alter the essential nature of the crimes in-uestion, as felonies perpetrated b public officers or emplo ees in confabulation with private persons. 't should be as obvious, too, thatassumin" it is correct to construe the law in a strictl literal sense, the indicated course of action would be to insist on holdin" a !oint trialre"ardless of whatever circumstances ma appear to ma4e such a !oint trial inappropriate, inconvenient, unfeasible. Thus, for instance,the cases in the econd 0ivision, althou"h alread submitted for decision, should be reopened to allow for the consolidation of Bondoc scases with those of the defendants therein, and the reception of evidence a"ainst and for Bondoc. 'ndeed, even in the e=tremeh pothesis of appeal havin" alread been ta4en b Bondoc s co9accused, the course of action dictated b a literal construction of theprovision on !oint trial is the remand of the appealed case to the andi"anba an so that the !oint trial ma be conducted.


31/203

To construe the law in the manner indicated, however, would be unreasonable, if not absurd 1what of the case, for instance, where theaccused public officers or emplo ees have alread been convicted and have appealed, or are alread servin" sentence, or have beenac-uitted2, and settled is the rule that courts should not "ive a statute a meanin" that would lead to absurdities11 "eneral terms of astatute should be so limited in their application as precisel to avoid absurdities, and it will alwa s be presumed that the le"islature

intended e=ceptions to its lan"ua"e which would avoid conse-uences of this character.1

The provision in -uestion should thus be readas re-uirin" that private individuals accused in the andi"anba an, to"ether with public officers or emplo ees, must be tried !ointl withthe latter unless the attendant circumstances have made impossible or impracticable such a !oint trial, as in the cases at bar, in whichevent the trial of said private persons ma proceed separatel from the public officers or emplo ees whose own trials have beenconcluded.

Besides, there is nothin" so sacrosanct or important about a !oint trial as to !ustif a radical deviation from ordinar , orderl courtprocesses in order to have it, or as to affect the ver !urisdiction of the Court re-uired to conduct it. The evidence of the tate or of theaccused does not become wea4er or stron"er whether presented at a !oint or separate trial the ri"hts of the accused are not enhancedor diluted b the character of a trial as !oint or separate the procedure prescribed in either situation is essentiall the same. 'ndeed, it is a"au"e of the importance of a !oint trial, in the e es of trial attorne s and of the law itself, that there are as man law ers movin" for aseparate trial as there are, for a !oint trial, and that courts are "ranted the discretion, in cases where two or more accused are !ointlchar"ed with an offense, to order separate trials instead of a !oint trial, on motion of the fiscal or an accused.13

&urhermore, it is not le"all possible to transfer Bondoc s cases to the Re"ional Trial Court, for the simple reason that the latter would nothave !urisdiction over the offenses. As alread above intimated, the inabilit of the andi"anba an to hold a !oint trial of Bondoc s casesand those of the "overnment emplo ees separatel char"ed for the same crimes, has not altered the nature of the offenses char"ed,as estafa thru falsification punishable b penalties hi"her than prision correccional or imprisonment of si= ears, or a fine of P),GGG.GG,committed b "overnment emplo ees in conspirac with private persons, includin" Bondoc. These crimes are within the e=clusive,

ori"inal !urisdiction of the andi"anba an. The simpl cannot be ta4en co"ni;ance of b the re"ular courts, apart from the fact that evenif the cases could be so transferred, a !oint trial would nonetheless not be possible.

As to Bondoc s onl other ar"ument, that his cases should be transferred to the re"ular courts because he would there have two levels ofappeal 1i.e., the Court of Appeals, and then the upreme Court2, unli4e in the andi"anba an where his appellate recourse is onl one, tothe upreme Court, it suffices to point out, as the andi"anba an has, that the matter has lon" since been laid to rest, in;une> 9.San!iganbayan . 14


32/203

F#ERE&@RE, the petition is 0EN'E0 for lac4 of merit, with costs a"ainst petitioner.

@ @R0ERE0.


33/203

T#'R0 0'H' '@N

DG.R. No. 116033. F$ %!a%y 6, 1997

ALFRE2O L. A ARCON, petitioner, vs. SAN2IGANBA AN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES a*" OSE C. BATAUSA, respondents .

2 E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN,J .

0oes the andi"anba an have !urisdiction over a private individual who is char"ed with malversation of public funds as a principalafter the said individual had been desi"nated b the Bureau of 'nternal Revenue as a custodian of distrained propert J 0id such accusedbecome a public officer and therefore sub!ect to the "raft courtOs !urisdiction as a conse-uence of such desi"nation b the B'RJ

These are the main -uestions in the instant petition for review of respondent andi"anba anOs 0ecisionK5L in Criminal Case No.5>+)G promul"ated on March 8, 566>, convictin" petitioner of malversation of public funds and propert , and ResolutionK+L dated %une +G,566>, den in" his motion for new trial or reconsideration thereof.

T;$ Fa+&)

Petitioner Alfredo A;arcon owned and operated an earth9movin" business, haulin" dirt and ore.QK L #is services were contracted bthe Paper 'ndustries Corporation of the Philippines 1P'C@P2 at its concession in Man"a"o , uri"ao del ur. @ccasionall , he en"a"edthe services of sub9contractors li4e %aime Ancla whose truc4s were left at the formerOs premises.K>L &rom this set of circumstances arosethe present controvers .
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn1


34/203

= = = 't appears that on Ma +7, 568 , a Farrant of 0istraint of Personal Propert was issued b the Main @ffice of the Bureau of 'nternalRevenue 1B'R2 addressed to the Re"ional 0irector 1%ose Batausa2 or his authori;ed representative of Revenue Re"ion 5G, Butuan Citcommandin" the latter to distraint the "oods, chattels or effects and other personal propert of %aime Ancla, a sub9contractor of accusedA;arcon and, a delin-uent ta=pa er. The Farrant of $arnishment was issued to accused Alfredo A;arcon orderin" him to transfer,

surrender, transmit andIor remit to B'R the propert in his possession owned b ta=pa er Ancla. The Farrant of $arnishment wasreceived b accused A;arcon on %une 5*, 5687.QK7L

Petitioner A;arcon, in si"nin" the Receipt for $oods, Articles, and Thin"s ei;ed Dnder Authorit of the National 'nternal Revenue,Qassumed the underta4in"s specified in the receipt the contents of which are reproduced as follows?

1'2, the undersi"ned, hereb ac4nowled"e to have received from Amadeo H. an 0ie"o, an 'nternal Revenue @fficer, Bureau of 'nternalRevenue of the Philippines, the followin" described "oods, articles, and thin"s?

ind of propert 999 'su;u dump truc4Motor number 999 E5+G9++6768Chassis No. 999 P(D7G95**+>>GNumber of C / 999 )Color 999 Blue@wned B 999 Mr. %aime Ancla

the same havin" been this da sei;ed and left in 1m 2 possession pendin" investi"ation b the Commissioner of 'nternal Revenue or hisdul authori;ed representative. 1'2 further promise that 1'2 will faithfull 4eep, preserve, and, to the best of 1m 2 abilit , protect said "oods,articles, and thin"s sei;ed from defacement, demarcation, lea4a"e, loss, or destruction in an manner that 1'2 will neither alter nor

remove, nor permit others to alter or remove or dispose of the same in an manner without the e=press authorit of the Commissioner of'nternal Revenue and that 1'2 will produce and deliver all of said "oods, articles, and thin"s upon the order of an court of the Philippines,or upon demand of the Commissioner of 'nternal Revenue or an authori;ed officer or a"ent of the Bureau of 'nternal Revenue.QK)L

ubse-uentl , Alfredo A;arcon wrote a letter dated November +5, 5687 to the B'ROs Re"ional 0irector for Revenue Re"ion 5G B,Butuan Cit statin" that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn6


35/203


36/203

Alon" with his co9accused %aime Ancla, petitioner A;arcon was char"ed before the andi"anba an with the crime of malversation ofpublic funds or propert under Article +5* in relation to Article +++ of the Revised Penal Code 1RPC2 in the followin" 'nformationK5+Lfiled on%anuar 5+, 566G, b pecial Prosecution @fficer Hictor Pascual?

That on or about %une 5*, 5687, in the Municipalit of Bisli", Province of uri"ao del ur, Philippines, and within the !urisdiction of this#onorable Court, accused Alfredo /. A;arcon, a private individual but who, in his capacit as depositor Iadministrator of propert sei;edor deposited b the Bureau of 'nternal Revenue, havin" voluntaril offered himself to act as custodian of one 'su;u 0umptruc4 1sic2 withMotor No. E5+G9++678, Chasis No. P(D 7G95**+>>G, and number C /9) and was authori;ed to be such under the authorit of theBureau of 'nternal Revenue, has become a responsible and accountable officer and said motor vehicle havin" been sei;ed from %aime C.Ancla in satisfaction of his ta= liabilit in the total sum of E'$#T3 T#@D AN0 E'$#T #DN0RE0 T#'RT3 @NE PE @ and 76I5GG1P8G,8 5.762 became a public propert and the value thereof as public fund, with "rave abuse of confidence and conspirin" andconfederatin" with said %aime C. Ancla, li4ewise, a private individual, did then and there wilfull , 1sic2 unlawfull and feloniouslmisappropriate, misappl and convert to his personal use and benefit the aforementioned motor vehicle or the value thereof in theaforestated amount, b then and there allowin" accused %aime C. Ancla to remove, retrieve, withdraw and tow awa the said 'su;u0umptruc4 1sic2 with the authorit , consent and 4nowled"e of the Bureau of 'nternal Revenue, Butuan Cit , to the dama"e and pre!udiceof the "overnment in the amount of P8G,8 5.76 in a form of unsatisfied ta= liabilit .

C@NTRAR3 T@ /AF.Q

The petitioner filed a motion for reinvesti"ation before the andi"anba an on Ma 5>, 5665, alle"in" that? 152 the petitioner neverappeared in the preliminar investi"ation and 1+2 the petitioner was not a public officer, hence a doubt e=ists as to wh he was bein"char"ed with malversation under Article +5* of the Revised Penal Code.K5 L The andi"anba an "ranted the motion for reinvesti"ation onMa ++, 5665.K5>L After the reinvesti"ation, pecial Prosecution @fficer Ro"er Berbano, r., recommended the withdrawal of the

informationQK57L

but was overruled b the @mbudsman.QK5)L

A motion to dismiss was filed b petitioner on March +7, 566+ on the "round that the andi"anba an did not have !urisdiction overthe person of the petitioner since he was not a public officer.K5*L @n Ma 58, 566+, the andi"anba an denied the motion.K58L

Fhen the prosecution finished presentin" its evidence, the petitioner then filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence which was denied on November 5), 566+, for bein" without merit.QK56L The petitioner then commenced and finished presentin" his evidence on&ebruar 57, 566 .
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn19


37/203

T;$ R$)8o*"$*& Co!%& ) 2$+()(o*

@n March 8, 566>, respondent andi"anba anK+GL rendered a 0ecision,K+5L the dispositive portion of which reads?

F#ERE&@RE, the Court finds accused Alfredo A;arcon /eva $D'/T3 be ond reasonable doubt as principal of Malversation of Public&unds defined and penali;ed under Article +5* in relation to Article +++ of the Revised Penal Code and, appl in" the 'ndeterminate

entence /aw, and in view of the miti"atin" circumstance of voluntar surrender, the Court hereb sentences the accused to suffer thepenalt of imprisonment ran"in" from TEN 15G2 3EAR and @NE 152 0A3 of prision "ayor in its ma=imum period to EHENTEEN 15*23EAR , &@DR 1>2 M@NT# and @NE 152 0A3 of?eclusion 5e"poral . To indemnif the Bureau of 'nternal Revenue the amountof P8G,8 5.76 to pa a fine in the same amount without subsidiar imprisonment in case of insolvenc to suffer special perpetualdis-ualification and, to pa the costs.

Considerin" that accused %aime Ancla has not et been brou"ht within the !urisdiction of this Court up to this date, let this case be

archived as a"ainst him without pre!udice to its revival in the event of his arrest or voluntar submission to the !urisdiction of this Court.@ @R0ERE0.Q

Petitioner, throu"h new counsel,K++L filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration on March + , 566>, which was denied b theandi"anba an in its ResolutionK+ L dated 0ecember +, 566>.

#ence, this petition.

T;$ I))!$)

The petitioner submits the followin" reasons for the reversal of the andi"anba anOs assailed 0ecision and Resolution?

'. The andi"anba an does not have !urisdiction over crimes committed solel b private individuals.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn23


38/203

''. 'n an event, even assumin" ar"uendo that the appointment of a private individual as a custodian or a depositar ofdistrained propert is sufficient to convert such individual into a public officer, the petitioner cannot still be considered a publicofficer because?

DAThere is no provision in the National 'nternal Revenue Code which authori;es the Bureau of 'nternal Revenue to constitute privateindividuals as depositaries of distrained properties.

DB

#is appointment as a depositar was not b virtue of a direct provision of law, or b election or b appointment b a competent authorit .

'''. No proof was presented durin" trial to prove that the distrained vehicle was actuall owned b the accused %aime Ancla conse-uentl ,

the "overnmentOs ri"ht to the sub!ect propert has not been established.

'H. The procedure provided for in the National 'nternal Revenue Code concernin" the disposition of distrained propert was not followedb the B.'.R., hence the distraint of personal propert belon"in" to %aime C. Ancla and found alle"edl to be in the possession of thepetitioner is therefore invalid.

H. The B.'.R. has onl itself to blame for not promptl sellin" the distrained propert of accused %aime C. Ancla in order to reali;e theamount of bac4 ta=es owed b %aime C. Ancla to the Bureau.QK+>L

'n fine, the fundamental issue is whether the andi"anba an had !urisdiction over the sub!ect matter of the controvers . Corollar tothis is the -uestion of whether petitioner can be considered a public officer b reason of his bein" desi"nated b the Bureau of 'nternalRevenue as a depositar of distrained propert .

T;$ Co!%& ) R!/(*#

The petition is meritorious.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn24


39/203

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

't is hornboo4 doctrine that in order 1to2 ascertain whether a court has !urisdiction or not, the provisions of the law should be in-uiredinto.QK+7L &urthermore, the !urisdiction of the court must appear clearl from the statute law or it will not be held to e=ist. 't cannot bepresumed or implied.QK+)L And for this purpose in criminal cases, the !urisdiction of a court is determined b the law at the time ofcommencement of the action.QK+*L

'n this case, the action was instituted with the filin" of this information on %anuar 5+, 566G hence, the applicable statutorprovisions are those of P.0. No. 5)G), as amended b P.0. No. 58)5 on March + , 568 , but prior to their amendment b R.A. No. *6*7on Ma 5), 5667. At that time, ection > of P.0. No. 5)G) provided that?

EC. >. uris!iction. 99 The andi"anba an shall e=ercise?

1a2 E=clusive ori"inal !urisdiction in all cases involvin"?

152 Hiolations of Republic Act No. G56, as amended, otherwise 4nown as the Anti9$raft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No.5 *6, and Chapter '', ection +, Title H'' of the Revised Penal Code

1+2 @ther offenses or felonies committed b public officers and emplo ees in relation to their office, includin" those emplo ed in"overnment9owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or comple=ed with other crimes, where the penalt prescribed b law ishi"her than prision correccional or imprisonment for si= 1)2 ears, or a fine of P),GGG.GG? PR@H'0E0, #@FEHER, that offenses orfelonies mentioned in this para"raph where the penalt prescribed b law does not e=ceed prision correccional or imprisonment for si= 1)2

ears or a fine of P),GGG.GG shall be tried b the proper Re"ional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal

Circuit Trial Court.= = = = = = = = =

'n case private individuals are char"ed as co9principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or emplo ees, includin" thoseemplo ed in "overnment9owned or controlled corporations, the shall be tried !ointl with said public officers and emplo ees.

= = = = = = = = =.Q
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn27


40/203

The fore"oin" provisions une-uivocall specif the onl instances when the andi"anba an will have !urisdiction over a privateindividual, i.e. when the complaint char"es the private individual either as a co9principal, accomplice or accessor of a public officer oremplo ee who has been char"ed with a crime within its !urisdiction.

Azarcon: A Public Officer or A Private Individual?

The 'nformation does not char"e petitioner A;arcon of bein" a co9principal, accomplice or accessor to a public officer committin" anoffense under the andi"anba anOs !urisdiction. Thus, unless petitioner be proven a public officer, the andi"anba an will have no !urisdiction over the crime char"ed. Article +G of the RPC determines who are public officers?

=ho are public officers. %%&or the purpose of appl in" the provisions of this and the precedin" titles of the boo4, an person who, bdirect provision of the law, popular election, popular election or appointment b competent authorit , shall ta4e part in the performance of

public functions in the $overnment of the Philippine 'slands, or shall perform in said $overnment or in an of its branches public duties asan emplo ee, a"ent, or subordinate official, of an ran4 or classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer.Q

Thus,

1to2 be a public officer , one must be 99

1525a:ing part in the performance of public functions in the "overnment, or

Perfor"ing in said $overnment or an of its branches public !uties as an e"ployee, agent, or subor!inate official, of an ran4 or classand

1+2 That his authorit to ta4e part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be 99

a. b direct provision of the law, or

b. b popular election, or


41/203

c. b appointment b competent authorit .QK+8L

$rantin" arguen!o that the petitioner, in si"nin" the receipt for the truc4 constructivel distrained b the B'R, commenced to ta4e partin an activit constitutin" public functions, he obviousl ma not be deemed authori;ed b popular election. The ne=t lo"ical -uer is whether petitionerOs desi"nation b the B'R as a custodian of distrained propert -ualifies as appointment b direct provision of law, or bcompetent authorit .K+6L Fe answer in the ne"ative.

The olicitor $eneral contends that the B'R, in effectin" constructive distraint over the truc4 alle"edl owned b %aime Ancla, and inre-uirin" the petitioner Alfredo A;arcon who was in possession thereof to si"n a pro for"a receipt for it, effectivel desi"natedQ petitionera depositar and, hence, citin"7.S. 9s. ?astrollo, K GL a public officer.K 5L This is based on the theor that

1t2he power to desi"nate a private person who has actual possession of a distrained propert as a depositor of distrained propert isnecessaril implied in the B'ROs power to place the propert of a delin-uent ta= pa er 1sic2 in distraint as provided for under ections +G),+G* and +G8 1formerl ections G , G> and G72 of the National 'nternal Revenue Code, 1N'RC2 = = =.QK +L

Fe disa"ree. The case of 7.S. 9s. ?astrollo is not applicable to the case before us simpl because the facts therein are notidentical, similar or analo"ous to those obtainin" here. Fhile the cited case involved a ju!icial deposit of the proceeds of the sale ofattached propert in the hands of the debtor, the case at bench dealt with the B'ROs administrative act of effectin" constructive distraintover alle"ed propert of ta=pa er Ancla in relation to his bac4 ta=es, propert which was received b petitioner A;arcon. 'n the citedcase, it was clearl within the scope of that courtOs !urisdiction and !udicial power to constitute the !udicial deposit and "ive the depositara character e-uivalent to that of a public official.QK L#owever, in the instant case, while the B'R had authorit to re-uire petitioner A;arconto si"n a receipt for the distrained truc4, the N'RC did not "rant it power to appoint A;arcon a public officer.

't is a=iomatic in our constitutional framewor4, which mandates a limited "overnment, that its branches and administrative a"encies

e=ercise onl that power dele"ated to them as defined either in the Constitution or in le"islation or in both.QK >L

Thus, althou"h theappointin" power is the e=clusive prero"ative of the President, = = =QK 7L the -uantum of powers possessed b an administrative a"encformin" part of the e=ecutive branch will still be limited to that conferred e=pressl or b necessar or fair implicationQ in its enablin"act. #ence, 1a2n administrative officer, it has been held, has onl such powers as are e=pressl "ranted to him and those necessarilimplied in the e=ercise thereof.QK )L Corollaril , implied powers are those which are necessaril included in, and are therefore of lesserde"ree than the power "ranted. 't cannot e=tend to other matters not embraced therein, nor are not incidental thereto.QK *L &or to soe=tend the statutor "rant of power would be an encroachment on powers e=pressl lod"ed in Con"ress b our Constitution.QK 8L 't is true
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/116033.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.go

jurisdiction of sb

Documents