lacson v exec secretary

8/12/2019 Lacson v Exec Secretary

1/14

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999

PANFILO M. LACSON, !"#"#on!r,

vs.

T$E E%ECUTI&E SECRETAR', T$E SAN(IGAN)A'AN, OFFICE OF T$E SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,T$E (EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, M'RNA A)ALORA, NENITA ALAP*AP, IMEL(A PANC$OMONTERO, an+ T$E PEOPLE OF T$E P$ILIPPINES, respondent.

ROMEO M. ACOP AN( FRANCISCO G. U)IA, JR., petitioner-intervenors.

MARTINE, J.:

The constitutionality of Sections and ! of Republic Act No. "#$ % an act &hich further defines the'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan % is bein( challen(ed in this petition for prohibition and mandamus.Petitioner Panfilo )acson* 'oined by petitioners-intervenors Ro+eo Acop and ,rancisco ubia* r.* alsosee/s to prevent the Sandi(anbayan fro+ proceedin(s &ith the trial of Cri+inal Cases Nos. #01!-#012!3for +ultiple +urder4 a(ainst the+ on the (round of lac/ of 'urisdiction.

The antecedents of this case* as (athered fro+ the parties5 pleadin(s and docu+entary proofs* are asfollo&s6

7n the early +ornin( of May 8"* 8$$2* eleven 3884 persons believed to be +e+bers of the 9uraton(Balelen( (an(* reportedly an or(ani:ed cri+e syndicate &hich had been involved in a spate of ban/robberies in Metro Manila* &here slain alon( Co++on&ealth Avenue in ;ue:on City by ele+ents of the

Anti-Ban/ Robbery and 7ntelli(ence Tas/ 4 headed by petitionerChief Superintendent Panfilo M. )acson= Central Police ?istrict Co++and 3CP?C4 led by ChiefSuperintendent Ricardo de )eon= and the Cri+inal 7nvesti(ation Co++and 3C7C4 headed by petitioner-intervenor Chief Superintendent Ro+eo Acop.

Actin( on a +edia e@pose of SP# Eduardo delos Reyes* a +e+ber of the C7C* that &hat actuallytranspired at da&n of May 8"* 8$$2 &as a su++ary e@ecution 3or a rub out4 and not a shoot-out bet&eenthe 9uraton( Balelen( (an( +e+bers and the ABR7T


2/14

>o&ever* a revie& board led by verall ?eputy +buds+an ,rancisco illa +odified +odified theBlancaflor panel5s findin( and reco++ended the indict+ent for +ultiple +urder a(ainst t&enty-si@ 3#4respondents* includin( herein petitioner and intervenors. The reco++endation &as approved by the+buds+an e@cept for the &ithdra&al of the char(es a(ainst Chief Supt. Ricardo de )eon.

Thus* on Nove+ber #* 8$$2* petitioner Panfilo )acson &as a+on( those char(ed as principal in eleven

3884 infor+ation for +urder2

before the Sandi(anbayan5s Second ?ivision* &hile intervenors Ro+eo Acopand ,rancisco ubia* r. &ere a+on( those char(ed in the sa+e infor+ations as accessories after-in-the-fact.

Dpon +otion by all the accused in the 88 infor+ation*-the Sandi(anbayan allo&ed the+ to file a +otionfor reconsideration of the +buds+an5s action.

After conductin( a reinvesti(ation* the +buds+an filed on March 8* 8$$ eleven 3884 a+endedinfor+ations/before the Sandi(anbayan* &herein petitioner &as char(ed only as an accessory* to(ether&ith Ro+eo Acop and ,rancisco ubia* r. and other. ne of the accused6&as dropped fro+ the case.

n March 2-* 8$$* all the accused filed separate +otions uestionin( the 'urisdiction of theSandi(anbayan* assertin( that under the a+ended infor+ations* the cases fall &ithin the 'urisdiction of

the Re(ional Trial Court pursuant to Section # 3para(raphs a and c4 of Republic Act No. !$!2.Theycontend that the said la& li+ited the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan to cases &here one or +ore of theFprincipal accusedF are (overn+ent officials &ith Salary


3/14

After ustice )a(+an &rote the Resolution and ustice ?e+etriou concurred in it* butbefore ustice de )eon. r. rendered his concurrin( and dissentin( opinion* the le(islatureenacted Republic Act "#$ and the President of the Philippines approved it on ,ebruary2* 8$$!. Considerin( the pertinent provisions of the ne& la&* ustices )a(+an and?e+etriou are no& in favor of (rantin(* as they are no& (rantin(* the SpecialProsecutor5s +otion for reconsideration. ustice de )eon has already done so in hisconcurrin( and dissentin( opinion.

@@@ @@@ @@@

Considerin( that three of the accused in each of these cases are PNP ChiefSuperintendents6 na+ely* e&el T. Canson* Ro+eo M. Acop and Panfilo M. )acson* andthat trial has not yet be(un in all these cases % in fact* no order of arrest has beenissued % this court has co+petence to ta/e co(ni:ance of these cases.

To recapitulate* the net result of all the fore(oin( is that by the vote of 0 of #* the courtad+itted the A+ended 7nfor+ations in these cases by the unani+ous vote of &ith 8neither concurrin( not dissentin(* retained 'urisdiction to try and decide the cases 163E+pahasis supplied4

Petitioner no& uestions the constitutionality of Section of R.A. No. "#$* includin( Section ! thereof&hich provides that the said la& Fshall apply to all cases pendin( in any court over &hich trial has notbe(un as to the approval hereof.F Petitioner ar(ues that6

a4 The uestioned provisions of the statute &ere introduced by the authors thereof in badfaith as it &as +ade to precisely suit the situation in &hich petitioner5s cases &ere in atthe Sandi(anbayan by restorin( 'urisdiction thereof to it* thereby violatin( his ri(ht toprocedural due process and the eual protection clause of the Constitution. ,urther* fro+the &ay the Sandi(anbayan has foot-dra((ed for nine 3$4 +onths the resolution of apendin( incident involvin( the transfer of the cases to the Re(ional Trial Court* thepassa(e of the la& +ay have been ti+ed to overta/e such resolution to render the issuetherein +oot* and frustrate the e@ercise of petitioner5s vested ri(hts under the old

Sandi(anbayan la& 3RA !$!24

b4 Retroactive application of the la& is plan fro+ the fact that it &as a(ain +ade to suitthe peculiar circu+stances in &hich petitioner5s cases &ere under* na+ely* that the trialhad not yet co++enced* as provided in Section !* to +a/e certain that those cases &illno lon(er be re+anded to the ;ue:on City Re(ional Trial Court* as the Sandi(anbayanalone should try the+* thus +a/in( it an ex post factole(islation and a denial of the ri(htof petitioner as an accused in Cri+inal Case Nos. #01!-#012! to procedural dueprocess.

c4 The title of the la& is +isleadin( in that it contains the aforesaid FinnocuousF provisionsin Sections and ! &hich actually e@pands rather than defines the old Sandi(anbayanla& 3RA !$!24* thereby violatin( the one-title one-sub'ect reuire+ent for the passa(e of

statutes under Section # 384* Article 7 of the Constitution.1

,or their part* the intervenors* in their petition-in-intervention* add that F&hile Republic Act No. "#$innocuously appears to have +erely e@panded the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan* the introduction ofSection and ! in said statute i+pressed upon it the character of a class le(islation and an ex-post factostatute intended to apply specifically to the accused in the 9uraton( Balelen( case pendin( before theSandi(anbayan.18They further ar(ued that if their case is tried before the Sandi(anbayan their ri(ht toprocedural due process &ould be violated as they could no lon(er avail of the t&o-tiered appeal to theSandi(anbayan* &hich they acuired under R.A. !$!2* before recourse to the Supre+e Court.


4/14

Both the ffice of the +buds+an and the Solicitor-


5/14

384 fficials of the e@ecutive branch occupyin( the positions of re(ional director andhi(her* other&ise classified as


6/14

The Sandi(anbayan shall e@ercise e@clusive appellate 'urisdiction over final 'ud(+ents*resolutions or orders of re(ional trial courts &hether in the e@ercise of their o&n ori(inal

'urisdiction or of their appellate 'urisdiction as herein provided.

The Sandi(anbayan shall have e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction over petitions of theissuance of the &rits of +anda+us* prohibition* certiorari* habeas corpus* in'unctions*

and other ancillary &rits and processes in aid of its appellate 'urisdiction and overpetitions of si+ilar nature* includin( quo warranto* arisin( or that +ay arise in cases filedor &hich +ay be filed under E@ecutive rder Nos. 8* #* 8 and 8-A* issued in 8$"6Provided* That the 'urisdiction over these petitions shall not be e@clusive of the Supre+eCourt.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Pa+bansa Bl(. 8#$* as &ell as the i+ple+entin(rules that the Supre+e Court has pro+ul(ated and +ay hereafter pro+ul(ate* relative toappealsKpetitions for revie& to the Court of Appeals* shall apply to appeals and petitionsfor revie& filed &ith the Sandi(anbayan. 7n all cases elevated to the Sandi(anbayan andfro+ the Sandi(anbayan to the Supre+e Court* the ffice of the +buds+an* throu(h itsspecial prosecutor* shall represent the People of the Philippines* e@cept in cases f iledpursuant to E@ecutive rder Nos. 8* #* 8* and -A* issued in 8$".

7n case private individuals are char(ed as co-principals* acco+plices or accessories &iththe public officers or e+ployee* includin( those e+ployed in (overn+ent-o&ned orcontrolled corporations* they shall be tried 'ointly &ith said public officers and e+ployeesin the proper courts &hich shall e@ercise e@clusive 'urisdiction over the+.

@@@ @@@ @@@ 3E+phasis supplied4

Sec. ! of R.A. No. "#$ states6

Sec. !. Transitory provision % This act shall apply to all cases pendin( in any court over&hich trial has not be(un as of the approval hereof. 3E+phasis supplied4

The Sandi(anbayan la& prior to R.A. "#$ &as R.A. !$!2. Section # of R.A. !$!2 provides6

Sec. #. Section of the sa+e decree IPresidential ?ecree No. 81* as a+ended4 ishereby further a+ended to read as follo&s6

Sec . urisdiction % The Sandi(anbayan shall e@ercise e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction inall cases involvin(6

a. iolations of Republic Act No. 018$* as a+ended* other&ise /no&n as the Anti-


7/14

3b4 City +ayors* vice-+ayors* +e+bers of the san((unian( panlun(sod*city treasurers* assessors* en(ineers* and other city depart+ent heads=

3c4 fficials of the diplo+atic service occupyin( the position of consul andhi(her=

3d4 Philippine Ar+y and air force colonels* naval captains* and all officersof hi(her ran/=

3e4 PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of hi(her ran/=

3f4 City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants* and officials andprosecutors in the ffice of the +buds+an and special prosecutor=

3(4 Presidents* directors or trustees* or +ana(ers of (overn+ent-o&nedor controlled corporations* state universities or educational institutions orfoundations=

3#4 Me+bers of Con(ress or officials thereof classified as


8/14

@@@ @@@ @@@ 3E+phasis supplied4

Sec. ! of R.A. No. !$!2 reads6

Sec. !. Dpon the effectivity of this Act* all cri+inal cases in &hich trial has not be(un inthe Sandi(anbayan shall be referred to the proper courts.

Dnder para(raphs a and c* Section of R.A. "#$* the &ord FprincipalF before the &ord FaccusedFappearin( in the above-uoted Section # 3para(raphs a and c4 of R.A. !$!2* &as deleted. 7t is due to thisdeletion of the &ord FprincipalF that the parties herein are at lo((erheads over the 'urisdiction of theSandi(anbayan. Petitioner and intervenors* relyin( on R.A. !$!2* ar(ue that the Re(ional Trial Court* notthe Sandi(anbayan* has 'urisdiction over the sub'ect cri+inal cases since none of the principal accusedunder the a+ended infor+ation has the ran/ of Superintendent28or hi(her. n the other hand* the fficeof the +buds+an* throu(h the Special Prosecutor &ho is tas/ed to represent the People before theSupre+e Court e@cept in certain cases*29contends that the Sandi(anbayan has 'urisdiction pursuant toR.A. "#$.

A perusal of the aforeuoted Section of R.A. "#$ reveals that to fall under the e@clusive ori(inal'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan* the follo&in( reuisites +ust concur6 384 the offense co++itted is a

violation of 3a4 R.A. 018$* as a+ended 3the Anti-


9/14

3#4 it +ust be (er+ane to the purpose of the la&=

304 +ust not be li+ited to e@istin( conditions only* and

34 +ust apply eualy to all +e+bers of the sa+e class* -/

all of &hich are present in this case.

The challen(ers of Sections and ! of R.A. "#$ failed to rebut the presu+ption of constitutionality andreasonables of the uestioned provisions. The classification bet&een those pendin( cases involvin( theconcerned public officials &hose trial has not yet co++ence and &hose cases could have been affectedby the a+end+ents of the Sandi(anbayan 'urisdiction under R.A. "#$* as a(ainst those cases &heretrial had already started as of the approval of the la&* rests on substantial distinction that +a/es realdifferences.-67n the f irst instance* evidence a(ainst the+ &ere not yet presented* &hereas in the latterthe parties had already sub+itted their respective proofs* e@a+ined &itnesses and presented docu+ents.Since it is &ithin the po&er of Con(ress to define the 'urisdiction of courts sub'ect to the constitutionalli+itations*-it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of that 'urisdiction &ould necessarily affectpendin( cases* &hich is &hy it has to privide for a re+edy in the for+ of a transitory provision. Thus*petitioner and intervenors cannot no& clai+ that Sections and ! placed the+ under a different cate(ory

fro+ those si+ilarly situated as the+. Precisely* para(raph a of Section provides that it shall apply to Fallcase involvin(F certain public officials and* under the transitory provision in Section !* to Fall casespendin( in any court.F Contrary to petitioner and intervenors5 ar(u+ent* the la& is not particularly directedonly to the 9uraton( Balelen( cases. The transitory provision does not only cover cases &hich are in theSandi(anbayan but also in Fany court.F 7t 'ust happened that 9uraton( Balelen( cases are one of thoseaffected by the la&. Moreover* those cases &here trial had already be(un are not affected by thetransitory provision under Section ! of the ne& la& 3R.A. "#$4.

7n their futile atte+pt to have said sections nullified* heavy reliance is pre+ised on &hat is perceived asbad faith on the part of a Senator and t&o ustices of the Sandi(anbaya -8for their participation in thepassa(e of the said provisions. 7n particular* it is stressed that the Senator had e@pressed stron(senti+ents a(ainst those officials involved in the 9uraton( Balelen( cases durin( the hearin(s conductedon the +atter by the co++ittee headed by the Senator. Petitioner further contends that the le(islature is

biased a(ainst hi+ as he clai+s to have been selected fro+ a+on( the ! +illion other ,ilipinos as theob'ect of the deletion of the &ord FprincipalF in para(raph a* Section of P.?. 81* as a+ended* and ofthe transitory provision of R.A. "#$.-9R.A "#$* &hile still a bill* &as acted* deliberated* considered by#0 other Senators and by about #21 Representatives* and &as separately approved by the Senate and>ouse of Representatives and* finally* by the President of the Philippines.

n the perceived bias that the Sandi(anbayan ustices alle(edly had a(ainst petitioner durin( theco++itte hearin(s* the sa+e &ould not constitute sufficient 'ustification to nullify an other&ise valid la&.Their presence and participation in the le(islative hearin(s &as dee+ed necessary by Con(ress since the+atter before the co++ittee involves the (raft court of &hich one is the head of the Sandi(anbayan andthe other a +e+ber thereof. The Con(ress* in its plenary le(islative po&ers* is particularly e+po&ered bythe Constitution to invite persons to appear before it &henever it decides to conduct inuiries in aid ofle(islation.0

Petitioner and entervenors further further ar(ued that the retroactive application of R.A. "#$ to the9uraton( Balelen( cases constitutes an ex post facto la&1for they are deprived of their ri(ht toprocedural due process as they can no lon(er avail of the t&o-tiered appeal &hich they had alle(edlyacuired under R.A. !$!2.

A(ain* this contention is erroneous. There is nothin( ex post factoin R.A. "#$. 7n Calder v. Bull*2an expost factola& is one %


10/14

3a4 &hich +a/es an act done cri+inal before the passin( of the la& and&hich &as innocent &hen co++itted* and punishes such action= or

3b4 &hich a((ravates a cri+e or +a/es it (reater than &hen it &asco++itted= or

3c4 &hich chan(es the punish+ent and inflicts a (reater punish+ent thanthe la& anne@ed to the cri+e &hen it &as co++itted.

3d4 &hich alters the le(al rules of evidence and recieves less or differenttesti+ony that the la& reuired at the ti+e of the co++ission of theoffense on order to convict the defendant.-

3e4 Every la& &hich* in relation to the offense or its conseuences* altersthe situation of a person to his disadvanta(e.

This Court added t&o +ore to the list* na+ely6

3f4 that &hich assu+es to re(ulate civil ri(hts and re+edies only but ineffect i+poses a penalty or deprivation of a ri(ht &hich &hen done &asla&ful=

3(4 deprives a person accussed of cri+e of so+e la&ful protection to&hich he has beco+e entitled* such as the protection of a for+erconviction or acuittal* or a procla+ation of a a+nesty./

x post factola&* (enerally* prohibits retrospectivity of penal la&s. 6R.A. "#$ is not penal la&. 7t is asubstantive la& on 'urisdiction &hich is not penal in character. Penal la&s are those acts of the )e(islature&hich prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations=or those that define cri+es* treatof their nature* and provide dor their punish+ent.8R.A !$!2* &hich a+ended P.?. 81 as re(ards theSandi(anbayan5s 'urisdiction* its +ode of appeal and other procedural +atters* has been declared by the

Court as not a penal la&* but clearly a procedural statute* i.e. one &hich prescribes rules of procedure by&hich courts applyin( la&s of all /inds can properly ad+inister 'ustice.9Not bein( a penal la&* theretroactive application of R.A. "#$ cannot be challen(ed as unconstitutional.

Petitioner5s and entervenors5 contention that their ri(ht to a t&o-tiered appeal &hich they acuired underR.A. !$!2 has been diluted by the enact+ent of R.A. "#$* is incorrect. The sa+e contention has alreadybeen re'ected by the court several ti+es/0considerin( that the ri(ht to appeal is not a natural ri(ht butstatutory in nature that can be re(ulated by la&. The +ode of procedure provided for in the statutory ri(htof appeal is not included in the prohibition a(ainst ex post factola&s./1R.A. "#$ pertains only to +attersof procedure* and bein( +erely an a+endatory statute it does not parta/e the nature of an ex post factola&. 7t does not +ete out a penalty and* therefore* does not co+e &ithin the prohibition./2Moreover* thela& did not alter the rules of evidence or the +ode of trial. /-7t has been ruled that ad'ective statutes +aybe +ade applicable to actions pendin( and unresolved at the ti+e of their passa(e. /

7n any case= R.A. "#$ has preserved the accused5s ri(ht to appeal to the Supre+e Court to revie&uestions of la&.//n the re+oval of the inter+ediate revie& of facts* the Supre+e Court still has thepo&er of revie& to deter+ine if he presu+ption of innocence has been convincin( overco+e./6

Another point. The challen(ed la& does not violate the one-title-one-sub'ect provision of the Constitution.Much e+phasis is placed on the &ordin( in the title of the la& that it FdefinesF the Sandi(anbayan

'urisdiction &hen &hat it alle(edly does is to Fe@pandF its 'urisdiction. The e@pantion in the 'urisdiction ofthe Sandi(anbayan* if it can be considered as such* does not have to be e@pressly stated in the title of the


11/14

la& because such is the necessary conseuence of the a+end+ents. The reuire+ent that every bill+ust only have one sub'ect e@pressed in the title/is satisfied if the title is co+prehensive enou(h* as inthis case* to include sub'ects related to the (eneral purpose &hich the statute see/s to achieve. /8Suchrule is liberally interpreted and should be (iven a practical rather than a technical construction. There ishere sufficient co+pliance &ith such reuire+ent* since the title of R.A. "#$ e@presses the (eneralsub'ect 3involvin( the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan and the a+end+ent of P.?. 81* as a+ended4and all the provisions of the la& are (er+ane to that (eneral sub'ect./9The Con(ress* in e+ployin( the&ord FdefineF in the title of the la&* acted &ithin its po&er since Section #* Article 777 of the Constitutionitself e+po&ers the le(islative body to Fdefine* prescribe* and apportion the 'urisdiction of various courts. 60

There bein( no unconstitutional infir+ity in both the sub'ect a+endatory provision of Section and theretroactive procedural application of the la& as provided in Section ! of R.A. No. "#$* &e shall no&deter+ine &hether under the alle(ations in the 7nfor+ations* it is the Sandi(anbayan or Re(ional TrialCourt &hich has 'urisdictions over the +ultiple +urder case a(ainst herein petitioner and entervenors.

The 'urisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution or statute. The ele+ents of that definition +ustappear in the co+plaint or infor+ation so as to ascertain &hich court has 'urisdiction over a case. >encethe ele+entary rule that the 'urisdiction of a court is deter+ined by the alle(ations in the co+plaint or

infor+ations*61

and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial.62

As stated earlier* the +ultiple +urder char(e a(ainst petitioner and intervenors falls under Section Ipara(raph bJ of R.A. "#$. Section reuires that the offense char(ed +ust be co++itted by theoffender in relation to his office in order for the Sandi(anbayan to have 'urisdiction over it.6-This

'urisdictional reuire+ent is in accordance &ith Section 2* Article H777 of the 8$!0 Constitution &hich+andated that the Sandi(anbayan shall have 'urisdiction over cri+inal cases co++itted by the publicofficers and e+ployees* includin( those in (over+ent-o&ned or controlled corporations* Fin relation totheir office as +ay be deter+ined by la&.F This constitutional +andate &as reiterated in the ne& 38$"!4Constitution &hen it declared in Section thereof that the Sandi(anbayan shall continue to function ande@ercise its 'urisdiction as no& or hereafter +ay be provided by la&.

The re+ainin( uestion to be resolved then is &hether the offense of +ultiple +urder &as co++itted in

relation to the office of the accussed PNP officers.

7n People vs. !onte"o*6&e held that an offense is said to have been co++itted in relation to the office ifit 3the offense4 is Finti+ately connectedF &ith the office of the offender and perpetrated &hile he &as in theperfor+ance of his official functions.6/This inti+ate relation bet&een the offense char(ed and thedischar(e of official duties F+ust be alle(ed in the infor+ations.F66

As to ho& the offense char(ed be stated in the infor+ations* Section $* Rule 881 of the Revised Rules ofCourt +andates6

Sec. $ Couse of accusation % The acts or o+issions co+plied of as constitutin( theoffense must be stated in ordinary and concise language &ithout repetition notnecessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense* but in such from as is

sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to #now what offense is intendedto be charged$ and enable the court to pronounce proper "udgment. 3E+phasis supplied4

As early as 8$2 &e pronounced that Fthe factor that characteri:es the char(e is the actual recital of thefacts.F6The real nature of the cri+inal char(e is deter+ined not fro+ the caption or prea+ble of theinfor+ations nor fro+ the specification of the provision of la& alle(ed to have been violated* they bein(conclusions of la&* but by the actual recital of facts in the co+plaint or infor+ation. 68


12/14

The noble ob'ect or &ritten accusations cannot be overe+phasi:ed. This &as e@plained in %.S. v.&arelsen6 $

The ob'ect of this &ritten accusations &as % ,irst= To furnish the accused &ith such adescretion of the char(e a(ainst hi+ as &ill enable hi+ to +a/e his defense and secondto avail hi+self of his conviction or acuittal for protection a(ainst a further prosecution

for the sa+e cause and third* to infor+ the court of the facts alle(ed so that it +ay decide&hether they are sufficient in la& to support a conviction if one should be had. 7n orderthat the reuire+ent +ay be satisfied*facts must be stated* not conclusions of law. Everycri+e is +ade up of certain acts and intent these must be set forth in the complaint withreasonable particularly of time*place* names3plaintiff and defendant4 and circumstances.7n short* the co+plaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstancenecessary to constitute the crime charged. 3E+phasis supplied4

7t is essential* therefore* that the accused be infor+ed of the facts that are i+puted to hi+ as Fhe ispresu+ed to have no indefendent /no&led(e of the facts that constitute the offense.F0

Applyin( these le(al principles and doctrines to the present case* &e find the a+ended infor+ations for+urder a(ainst herein petitioner and intervenors &antin( of specific factual aver+ents to sho& the

inti+ate relationKconnection bet&een the offense char(ed and the dischar(e of official function of theoffenders.

7n the present case* one of the eleven 3884 a+ended infor+ations1for +urder reads6

AMEN?E? 7N,RMAT7NS

The undersi(ned Special Prosecution fficer 777. ffice of the +buds+an herebyaccuses C>7E, 7NSP. M7C>AE) RAL A;D7N* C>7E, 7NSP. ERG7N T. 7))ACRTE*SEN7R 7NSP. SE)7T T. ES;D7E)* 7NSP. R7CAR?


13/14

That accused C>7E, SDPT. EGE) ,. CANSN* C>7E, SDPT. RME M. ACP*C>7E, SDPT. PAN,7) M. )ACSN* SEN7R SDPT. ,RANC7SC 7)AR7* C>7E, 7NSP. CESAR . MANCA 77* C>7E, 7NSP. o& the raid*arrests and shootin( happened in the t&o places far a&ay fro+ each other is pu::lin(. A(ain* &hile thereis the alle(ation in the a+ended infor+ation that the said accessories co++itted the offense Fin relation to

office as officers and +e+bers of the 3PNP4*F &e* ho&ever* do not see the inti+ate connection bet&eenthe offense char(ed and the accused5s official functions* &hich* as earlier discussed* is an essentialele+ent in deter+inin( the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan.

The strin(ent reuire+ent that the char(e be set forth &ith such particularly as &ill reasonably indicate thee@act offense &hich the accused is alle(ed to have co++itted in relation to his office &as* sad to say* notsatisfied. Ge believe that the +ere alle(ation in the a+ended infor+ation that the offense &as co++ittedby the accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. That phrase is +erely a conclusionbet&een of la&* not a factual avern+ent that &ould sho& the close inti+acy bet&een the offense char(edand the dischar(e of the accused5s official duties.

7n People vs. !agallanes* 2&here the 'urisdiction bet&een the Re(ional Trial Court and theSandi(anbayan &as at issue* &e ruled6

7t is an ele+entary rule that 'urisdiction is deter+ined by the alle(ations in the co+plaintor infor+ation and not by the result of evidence after trial.

7n 3People vs4 Monte'o 381" Phil 80 38$14* &here the a+ended infor+ation alle(ed

)eroy S. Bro&n City Mayor of Basilan City* as such* has or(ani:ed(roups of police patrol and civilian co++andoes consistin( of re(ularpolice+an and . . . special police+en appointed and provided by hi+ &ith


14/14

pistols and hi(her po&er (uns and then established a ca+p . . . at Tipo-tipo &hich is under his co++and . . . supervision and control &here hisco-defendants &ere stationed entertained cri+inal co+plaints andconducted the correspondin( investi(ations as &ell as assu+ed theauthority to arrest and detain person &ithout due process of la& and&ithout brin(in( the+ to the proper court* and that in line &ith this set-upestablished by said Mayor of Basilan City as such* and actin( upon hisorders his co-defendants arrested and +altreated A&alin Teba( &hodenied in conseuence thereof.

&e held that the offense char(ed &as co++itted in relation to the office of the accusedbecause it &as perpetreated &hile they &ere in the perfor+ance* thou(h i+proper orirre(ular of their official functions and &ould not have been co++itted had they not heldtheir office* besides* the accused had no personal +otive in co++ittin( the cri+e thus*there &as an inti+ate connection bet&een the offense and the office of the accused.

Dnli/e in Monte'o the infor+ations in Cri+inal Cases Nos. 822# and 8220 in the courtbelo& do not indicate that the accused arrested and investi(ated the victi+s and then/illed the latter in the course of the investi(ation. The infor+ations +erely alle(e that the

accused for the purpose of e@tractin( or e@tortin the su+ of P020*111.11 abducted*/idnapped and detained the t&o victi+s* and failin( in their co++on purpose they shot=and /illed the said victi+s. 'or the purpose of determining "urisdiction$ it is theseallegations that shall control* and not the evidence presented by the prosecution at thetrial.

7n the aforecited case of People vs. !onte"o* it is note&orthy that the phrase co++itted in relation topublic office Fdoes not appear in the infor+ation* &hich only si(nifies that the said phrase is not &hatdeter+ines the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan. Ghat is controllin( is the specific factual alle(ations inthe infor+ation that &ould indicate the close inti+acy bet&een the dischar(e of the accused5s officialduties and the co++ission of the offense char(ed* in order to ualify the cri+e as havin( been co++ittedin relation to public office.

Conseuently* for failure to sho& in the a+ended infor+ations that the char(e of +urder &as inti+atelyconnected &ith the dischar(e of official functions of the accused PNP officers* the offense char(ed in thesub'ect cri+inal cases is plain +urder and* therefore* &ithin the e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction of theRe(ional Trial Court*-not the Sandi(anbayan.

G>ERE,RE* the constitutionality of Sections and ! of R.A. "#$ is hereby sustained. The Addendu+to the March 2* 8$$! Resolution of the Sandi(anbayan is REERSE?. The Sandi(anbayan is herebydirected to transfer Cri+inal Cases Nos. #01! to #012! 3for +ultiple +urder4 to the Re(ional Trial Courtof ;ue:on City &hich has e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction over the said cases.()wphi(.n*t

S R?ERE?.

lacson v exec secretary

Documents