SECTOR DE AUTOTRANSPORTE TERRESTRE DE CARGA FEDERAL

EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT QUASHING THE INFORMATION AND DISMISING THE CASE NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IS HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION (WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case)—

Sandiganbayan HAS jurisdiction RATIO:

1. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan isset by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No.

3019, as amended.

It is P.D. No.1606, as amended, rather than R.A. No. 3019, as amended, that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No.

1486, which was amended by P.D. No. 1606 (expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan);

amended by P.D. No. 1861, further altering the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. R.A. No. 7975 made succeeding amendments, again amended by R.A. No.

8249. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 further modified the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following:

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

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

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade “27― and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 989 (Republic Act No.

6758), specifically including:

"_____ (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of thesangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city

department heads;

"_____(b) City mayor, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other

city department heads;

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

" _____(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of

higher rank;

"_____(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior

superintended or higher;

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

" _____(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational

institutions or foundations.

" _____(2) Members of Congress and officials

thereof classified as Grade “Grade '27'―

and up under the Compensation and Position

Classification Act of 1989;

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

" _____(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and

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

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

C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14

and 14-A, issued in 1986.

" _____In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade “Grade '27'― or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officer mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa

Blg. 129, as amended.

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

" _____The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986:

Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

" _____The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court

has promulgated and may thereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

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

" _____Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall, at all times, be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned."

Upon the other hand, R.A. No. 3019 is a penal statute which represses certain acts of public officers and private persons which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto. Section 10 of R.A. No. 3019 provides that all prosecutions for violation of the said law should be filed with the Sandiganbayan.

R.A. No. 3019 does NOT contain an enumeration of the cases over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. In fact, Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019 erroneously cited by Serrana, deals not with the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan but with prohibition on private individual:

Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family

or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word close personal relations shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.

In fine, the two statutes differ in that P.D. No. 1606, as amended, defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan while R.A. No. 3019, as amended, defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for their penalties.

2. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa.

Relying on Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, Serrana contends that estafa is not among those crimes cognizable by Sandiganbayan. We note that in hoisting this argument, petitioner isolated the first paragraph of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, without regard to the succeeding paragraphs of the said provision. The rule is well-established in this jurisdiction that every section, provision or clause of the statute must be expounded by reference to each other in order to arrive at the effect contemplated by the legislature.

Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads:

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

Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office.

We see no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of the offenses included in Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.

The 1987 Constitution does not define who are public officers. Rather, the varied definitions and concepts are found in different statutes and jurisprudence. In Aparri v. Court of Appeals the Court held that:

A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the

government, to be exercise by him for the benefit of the public

Serrana claims she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee-paying student. This is bereft of merit. It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. While the first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court. Serrana falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of law

Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.

Serrana falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a

non-stock corporation.

Moreover, it is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.

Moreover, UP is maintained by the Government and it declares no dividends and is not a corporation created for profit.Serrana is therefore a public officer by express mandate of P.D. No. 1606 and jurisprudence.

3. The offense charged was committed in relation to public office, according to the Information.

Serrana likewise argues that even assuming she is a public officer, the Sandiganbayan would still not have jurisdiction over the offense because it was not committed in relation to her office because she had no power or authority to act without the approval of the BOR. Resultantly, her act was done in a private capacity and not in relation to public office.

Jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion to quash.

4. Source of funds is a defense that should be raised during trial on the merits.

It is contended by Serrana that the amount came from President Estrada’s private funds and not

from the government coffers.

The Court cannot agree. The information alleges that the funds came from the Office of the President and not its then occupant, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Again, it is the averments that determine jurisdiction, not the defenses or theories of the defendant or respondent.

ESQUIVEL vs. OMBUDSMAN

FACTS: PO2 Eduardo and SPO1 Catacutan are assigned to the Regional Intelligence and Investigation Division of San Fernando Pampanga. They filed their complaint-affidavits with the CIDG against petitioners Antonio Esquivel (the municipal mayor Jaen, Nueva Ecija) and his brother Eboy Esquivel. They crimes complained of were illegal arrest, arbitrary detention, maltreatment, attempted murder and grave threats.

Several other police officers were accused with the Esquivels.

The initial investigation showed that on March 1998, Eduardo was in his parents’ house, about to eat lunch when Equivels arrived with other police officers.

They disarmed Eduardo and forced him to board their vehicle and brought him to the municipal hall. On the way, Mayor Esquivel mauled him and threatened to kill him while pointing a gun at Eduardo.

Upon arrival at the town hall, Mayor Esquivel ordered a certain SPO1 Espiritu to kill Eduardo but SPO1 Catacutan arrived to verify what happened to Eduardo. The mayor threatened him as well. The mayor continued to harass, threaten and inflict physical injuries upon Eduardo until he lost consciousness. When he woke up, he was released but no before he signed a statement in a police blotter that he was in good physical condition. The alleged motive for this was because the mayor believed Eduardo and Catacutan were among the law enforcers who raided a jueteng den connected to the mayor.

After investigation, the CIDG forwarded the findings to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, which conducted a preliminary investigation and required the submission of counter-affidavits. In their counter-affidavits, the Esquivels allege that Eduardo was actually a fugitive with a warrant of arrest for malversation and they just confiscated his gun for illegal possession.

In June 1998, the Deputy Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending that both Esquivels be indicted for less serious physical injuries and grave threats. As to the charges against other petitioners, they were dismissed. Then Ombudsman Desierto approved this. So, the separate informations were filed against the Esquivels in the Sandiganbayan.

Accused filed an MR but this was denied.

Esquivels were arraigned, pleaded not guilty. With the denial of their MR, they elevate the matter to the SC alleging GADLEJ in the issuance of the resolution of the deputy ombudsman.

Petitioners theorize that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over their persons as they hold positions excluded in Republic Act No. 7975. As the positions of municipal mayors and barangay captains are not mentioned therein, they claim they are not covered by said law under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

ISSUE: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the cases against both Mayor Esquivel and Eboy

Esquivel. - Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.

Esquivels are wrong!

RATIO: Petitioners’ claim lacks merit. In Rodrigo, Jr.

vs. Sandiganbayan, Binay vs.

Sandiganbayan, and Layus vs. Sandiganbayan, we already held that municipal mayors fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Nor can Barangay Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel claim that since he is not a municipal mayor, he is outside the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.

R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, provides that it is only in cases where "none of the accused (underscoring supplied) are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ‘27’ or higher" that

"exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended." Note that under the 1991 Local Government Code, Mayor Esquivel has a salary grade of 27. Since Barangay Captain Esquivel is the co-accused in Criminal Case No. 24777 of Mayor Esquivel, whose position falls under salary grade 27, the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over said criminal case, as well as over Criminal Case No. 24778, involving both of them. Hence, the writ of certiorari cannot issue in petitioners’ favor.

E. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman DOJ V. LIWAG

Facts: Alleging that she was a former undercover agent of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force and the PNP Narcotics Group, Mary Ong filed with a complaint-affidavit on January 8, 2001 with the Ombudsman against PNP General Panfilo Lacson, PNP Colonel Michael Ray B. Aquino, other high-ranking officials of the PNP, and several private individuals. The Ombudsman found the complaint-affidavit of Ong sufficient in form and substance and thus required respondents therein to file their counter-affidavits on the charges. Respondents submitted their counter-affidavits and prayed that the charges against them be dismissed.

On March 9, 2001, Ong and other witnesses executed sworn statements before the NBI alleging the same facts and circumstances in Ong’s complaint-affidavit before the Ombudsman. NBI Director Wycoco wrote a letter to DOJ Secretary Hernando Perez recommending the investigation of Lacson, Aquino, other PNP officials, and private individuals for the alleged crimes of: (1) kidnapping for ransom of Zeng Jia Xuan, Hong Zhen Quiao, Zeng Kang Pang, James Wong and Wong Kam Chong; (2) murder of Wong Kam Chong; (3) kidnapping of ransom and murder of Chong Hiu Ming.

On May 7, 2001, a panel of prosecutors from DOJ subpoenaed Lacson, Aquino, and other persons named in the witnesses’ sworn statements. The subpoena directed them to submit their counter-affidavits and controverting evidence on the scheduled preliminary investigation on the complaint filed by the NBI on May 18, 2001.

Through a letter dated May 18, 2001, Lacson and Aquino manifested that the DOJ panel of prosecutors should dismiss the complaint filed therewith by Ong since there are complaints pending before the Ombudsman alleging a similar set of facts against them. Furthermore, citing Uy v.

Sandiganbayan, they claimed that the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, he may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases involving public officials, including police and military officials such as private respondents.

The DOJ construed the letter as a motion to dismiss and on May 28, 2011 denied the dismissal of the cases. On the same day, the Solicitor General received a copy of a Petition for Prohibition filed by Lacson and Aquino before the RTC-Manila.

On June 22, 2001, Judge Liwag granted the Petition for Prohibition against DOJ and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining the DOJ from conducting the preliminary investigation against Lacson and Aquino.

The DOJ and NBI filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging Judge Liwag’s Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Issue: Whether the DOJ has jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation despite the pendency before the Ombudsman of a complaint involving the same accused, facts, and circumstances? - No jurisdiction.

Petition dismissed.

RATIO:

1. Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction.

Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 provides that the Office of the Ombudsman has

“primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the Government, the investigation of such cases.” This power to take over a

“primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the Government, the investigation of such cases.” This power to take over a

In document Efectos fiscales y financieros que impactaron a la empresa autotransportes delta sa de cv por la entrada en vigor de nuevas cargas fiscales (página 101-105)