CASE DIGEST

Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

1) G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was appointed by then Pres. Estrada as a student regent of UP
Cebu. Petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). P15,000,000 was extended
to OSRFI by Pres. Estrada for the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex as one of its projects. However,
the renovation failed to materialize. This prompted the succeeding student regent to file a complaint
before the Office of the Ombudsman. After due investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause
to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Serana for estafa before the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner moved to quash the information alleging that estafa is not among those crimes cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan. She also contended that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over her person as
she was not a public officer with Salary Grade 27, but a mere student regent who represented her
peers. The motion to quash was denied, hence the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction (1) over estafa cases; and (2) over the person of the accused
as a student regent.

RULING:

(1) Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa, as it is one of the felonies committed by public
officials in relation to their office. For sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction, these twin
requirements must be present: (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.
(2) Yes. Petitioner, as a student regent, is a public officer. It is not only the salary grade that
determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The court held that 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.
Petitioner falls under the category of Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned
or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations in Section 4(A)(1)(g)
of P.D. No. 1606 as the Board of Regent performs functions similar to those of a board of
trustees of a non-stock corporation.

1|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

2) G.R. Nos. 172476-99 September 15, 2010

BRIG. GEN. (Ret.) JOSE RAMISCAL, JR., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr. was the President of the AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits
System (AFP-RSBS). During his term, AFP-RSBS acquired a land for its housing projects by which
petitioner and Atty. Flaviano, as attorney-in-fact of the 12 vendors, signed bilateral deeds of sale over
the property at the agreed price of 10,500.00 per square meter. Subsequently, Flaviano executed
unilateral deeds of sale over the same property with a purchase price of only 3,000.00 per square
meter instead of 10,500. A complaint against petitioner and 27 other respondents, for (1) violation
of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and (2) malversation of public funds or property through
falsification of public documents was filed in the Ombudsman. Finding probable cause, 12
informations were filed by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan against petitioner his co-
accused.

Petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration (MR) of the Ombudsmans finding of probable
cause against him, and by virtue of which, Sandiganbayan asked the prosecution to evaluate its
findings. Final findings of the panel of prosecutors found probable cause for petitioners continued
prosecution, hence, recommended the denial of the MR. Upon receipt of the findings, Sandiganbayan
scheduled the arraignment of petitioner. Meanwhile, petitioner filed his second MR of the
Ombudsmans finding. He then filed a motion to set aside his arraignment pending resolution of his
second motion for reconsideration, but the same was likewise denied.

ISSUE:

Whether Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners motion to
set aside his arraignment pending resolution of his second motion for reconsideration.

RULING:

No, the Sandiganbayan committed no error when it proceeded with petitioners arraignment. Under
Section 7, Rule II of Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, the filing of a motion for
reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filing of the corresponding information in Court on
the basis of the finding of probable cause in the resolution subject of the motion. If the filing of a
motion for reconsideration of the resolution finding probable cause cannot bar the filing of the
corresponding information, then neither can it bar the arraignment of the accused, which in the normal
course of criminal procedure logically follows the filing of the information. Petitioner can no longer
file another motion for reconsideration questioning yet again the same finding of the Ombudsman.
Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation. Absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court
will not interfere with the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction and control over a case properly filed before it.
Furthermore, petitioner failed to show that his case falls under any of the instances constituting a valid

2|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

ground for suspension of arraignment provided under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, the petition lacks merit.

3) G.R. No. 124644 February 5, 2004

ARNEL ESCOBAL, Petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, Presiding Justice of

the Sandiganbayan, Atty. Luisabel Alfonso-Cortez, Executive Clerk of Court IV of the
Sandiganbayan, Hon. David C. Naval, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Naga
City, Branch 21, Luz N. Nueca, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner, a Police Senior Inspector with salary grade "23", was charged with murder before the trial
court when he got involved in the shooting incident while allegedly conducting surveillance
operations. Petitioner pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. Trial proceeded, and the prosecution
rested its case. The petitioner commenced the presentation of his evidence. Thereafter, he filed a
Motion to Dismiss alleging that since he committed the crime in the performance of his duties, the
Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The motion was denied. Petitioner filed a
motion for the reconsideration of the said order. Acting on the MR, the trial court reversed the assailed
order and directed (1) the filing of a Re-Amended Information and to allege that the offense charged
was committed in the performance of his duties; and (2) conformably to R.A. No. 7975, to transmit
the records of the case to the Sandiganbayan.

However, the Presiding Judge of the Sandiganbayan ordered the return of the records to the court of
origin and the RTC to retain jurisdiction over the case following the rule on continuity of jurisdiction.
Hence, the subject petition for certiorari assailing the Order of the Presiding Judge remanding the
records of the case to the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of his discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in ordering the remand of the case to the RTC.

RULING:

No, Presiding Justice acted in accordance with law when he ordered the remand of the case to the
RTC. The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the
Information or the Complaint and the statute in effect at the time of the commencement of the action,
unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. The jurisdictional requirements must
be alleged in the Information. Such jurisdiction of the court acquired at the inception of the case
continues until the case is terminated.

3|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

Also, for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction, it is essential that the facts showing the
intimate relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of official duties must be alleged
in the Information. It is not enough to merely allege in the Information that the crime charged was
committed by the offender in relation to his office because that would be a conclusion of law. The
amended Information filed with the RTC against the petitioner does not contain any allegation
showing the intimate relation between his office and the discharge of his duties.

Lastly, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a
position corresponding to a salary grade below "27," the proper Regional Trial Court or Municipal
Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Hence, the RTC had
exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged.

4) G.R. No. 168539 March 25, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HENRY T. GO, Respondent.

FACTS:

Respondent Henry Go, Chairman of PIATCO, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for conspiracy
with then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile in entering into a contract which is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government. Finding probable cause to indict respondent, the Ombudsman
filed an Information before the Sandiganbayan. However, Secretary Enrile was no longer indicted
because he died prior to the issuance of the resolution

Respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that he cannot be charged
independently of the deceased Secretary Enrile, the public officer with whom he was alleged to have
conspired, since he is not a public officer, thus, he may not be prosecuted for violation of Section 3(g)
of R.A. 3019. On the other hand, the prosecution contends that the SB has already acquired
jurisdiction over the person of respondent by reason of his voluntary appearance, when he filed a
motion for consolidation and when he posted bail. The prosecution also argued that the SB has
exclusive jurisdiction over respondent's case, even if he is a private person, because he was alleged to
have conspired with a public officer.

Subsequently, Sandiganbayan granted the Motion to Quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the accused. Hence, present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, who is a private individual,
charged with conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with whom
he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Information.

4|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

RULING:

Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. The requirement before a
private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such
private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however,
does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer.
If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present
case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone. Likewise,
private respondent's act of posting bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation vests the SB with
jurisdiction over his person. The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in posting bail or in
filing motions seeking affirmative relief is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction
of the court.

5) G.R. No. 165835 June 22, 2005

MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and the

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.

FACTS:

A complaint was filed against Petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Sec. 8, in relation to Sec.
11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, violation of Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and violation of Section
52 (A)(1), (3) and (20) of the Civil Service Law. Petitioners wife Clarita Garcia, and their three sons were
similarly impleaded for violation of R.A. No. 1379 insofar as they acted as conspirators and dummies of
petitioner in receiving, using and disposing of his ill-gotten wealth. Finding prima facie case, the Ombudsman
filed before the Sandiganbayan, a Petition with Verified Urgent Ex Parte Application for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Attachment under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 1379, against petitioner and co-respondents seeking the
forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties, alleging that during his incumbency, petitioner acquired huge
amounts of money and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income. The relief,
as prayed for, was granted by the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner elevated the case before the Supreme Court arguing that the petition for forfeiture is "civil" in nature
and the Sandiganbayan, having allegedly no jurisdiction over civil actions, therefore has no jurisdiction over the
petition.

ISSUE:

Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the "civil action" for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
properties under R.A. No. 1379.

RULING:

5|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

Yes, Sandiganbayan is vested with jurisdiction to try the subject case. Respondent court is vested with
jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379, entitled "An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State
Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing For the
Proceedings Therefor." R.A. No. 1379 does not enumerate any prohibited acts the commission of which
would necessitate the imposition of a penalty. Instead, it provides the procedure for forfeiture to be
followed in case a public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of
property manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his lawful
income and income from legitimately acquired property. In effect, it imposes the penalty of forfeiture
of the properties upon the respondent public officer or employee.

Even though the proceeding is civil in nature, the respondent in such forfeiture proceedings is a public
officer or employee and the violation of R.A. No. 1379 was committed during the respondent officer
or employees incumbency and in relation to his office. This is in line with the purpose behind the
creation of the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft courtto address the urgent problem of dishonesty in
public service. Clearly, violations of R.A. No. 1379 are placed under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.

6) G.R. No. 154473 April 24, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and PHOTOKINA MARKETING CORPORATION,

Petitioners, vs. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 155573 April 24, 2009

PHOTOKINA MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO,

Respondent.

FACTS:

Two separate informations for libel was charged against respondent Alfredo L. Benipayo, then
Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City. The charge sprung from the allegedly libelous remarks of respondents uttered in two different
occasions to which petitioner corporation believed that it was the one alluded to by the former.
Respondent moved for the dismissal of the informations raising similar arguments that the court had
no jurisdiction over his person, he being an impeachable officer; and that, even if criminal prosecution
were possible, jurisdiction rested with the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, the trial court issued the assailed
order dismissing the subject cases for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Hence,
the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over libel cases to the exclusion of all other courts.

6|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

RULING:

Yes, criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously
or separately with the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. While libel is punishable by
imprisonment of six months and one day to four years and two months (Art. 360, RPC) which
imposable penalty is lodged within the Municipal Trial Courts jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691 (Sec.
32 [2]), said law however, excludes cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts. Hence, the expanded jurisdiction conferred by R.A. 7691 to inferior courts
cannot be applied to libel cases. Furthermore, the grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over
offenses committed in relation to (public) office, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive and original
jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless of whether the offense is committed in relation
to office. Therefore, the two criminal cases are reinstated to the trial court for further proceedings.

7) G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999

PANFILO M. LACSON, Petitioner, vs.THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE

SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA
PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

(This case generally talks about the issue of constitutionality of R.A. No. 8249, which I
completely disregard. I only included relevant issue to avoid lengthy discussion )

FACTS:

The Ombudsman filed 11 informations for murder against petitioner Panfilo Lacson, then Chief
Superintendent and head of Presidential Anti-Crime Commission Task Force Habagat (PACC-
TFH) together with 26 other accused, before the Sandiganbayan. The charge stemmed from the
alleged summary execution of Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) members perpetrated by the accused
in relation to their office. Upon motion of Lacson, the criminal cases were remanded to the
Ombudsman for reinvestigation. Subsequently, his participation in the crime was downgraded from
principal to accessory.

On account of the downgrading of his criminal liability, Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan to hear the cases against him, considering that, as stated in the information, none of
the principal accused was a government official with a salary grade (SG) of 27 or higher, as required
by Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7975. Thereafter, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution which
ordered the transfer of the case to the Regional Trial Court. The Office of the Special Prosecutor then
filed a motion for reconsideration of the order to transfer. However, pending resolution of the motion,
R.A. No. 8249 took effect, amending R.A. No. 7975, which deleted the word principal from Section 2
of the prior law. The amendment expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to include all cases
where at least one of the accused, whether charged as principal, accomplice or accessory, is a

7|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

government official with SG 27 or higher. Hence, this petition filed by Lacson maintaining, among
others, that the charges against him should be heard in the RTC, not in Sandiganbayan as Section 4
and 7 of RA. 8249 constitutes class legislation and an ex-post facto statute, therefore, unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Whether the subject criminal charges against the accused falls under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.

RULING:

No, the offense charged must fall within the jurisdiction of the of the Regional Trial Court, not the
Sandiganbayan. The subject informations are wanting of specific factual averments to show the
intimate relation/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official function of
the offenders. Mere allegation in the information that the offense was committed by the accused
public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a conclusion between of
law, not a factual avernment that would show the close intimacy between the offense charged and the
discharge of the accused's official duties. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the
information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused's official
duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been
committed in relation to public office.

For failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected
with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject
criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan.

8) G.R. Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993

ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, vs. The Honorable HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU (in

her capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, NCR, Branch 70, Pasig), The Honorable
FRANKLIN DRILON (in his capacity as Secretary of Justice), JOVENCITO R. ZUO,
LEONARDO C. GUIYAB, CARLOS L. DE LEON, RAMONCITO C. MISON,
REYNALDO J. LUGTU, and RODRIGO P. LORENZO, the last six respondents in their
official capacities as members of the State Prosecutor's Office), Respondents.

(The case also discussed several issues such as PI, Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, Arrest, Informations, and
Discrimination. I just included the relevant issue in relation to the syllabus)

FACTS:

Respondent Prosecutors filed with the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, seven informations
charging Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna and 6 other accused with the rape and killing
of Mary Eileen Sarmenta. Respondent Secretary of Justice subsequently expressed his apprehension

8|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

that the trial of the said cases might result in a miscarriage of justice because of the tense and partisan
atmosphere in Laguna in favor of the petitioner and the relationship of an employee, in the trial court
with one of the accused. Therefor, the court ordered the transfer of the venue of the seven cases to
Pasig, where they were raffled to respondent Judge Demetriou. Petitioner moved for the quashal of
the informations and argued that as a public officer, he should be tried for the offense only by the
Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:

Whether the subject case automatically falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as the accused
in a public officer.

RULING:

No, the subject case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The crime of rape with
homicide with which the petitioner stands charged neither fall under paragraph (1) of P.D. No, 1606,
which deals with graft and corruption cases nor paragraph (2) because it is not an offense committed
in relation to the office of the petitioner. In the case at bar, there is no allegation therein that the crime
of rape with homicide imputed to the petitioner was connected with the discharge of his functions as
municipal mayor or that there is an "intimate connection" between the offense and his office. It
follows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the
Sandiganbayan.

9) G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was appointed by then Pres. Estrada as a student regent of UP
Cebu. Petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). P15,000,000 was extended
to OSRFI by Pres. Estrada for the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex as one of its projects. However,
the renovation failed to materialize. This prompted the succeeding student regent to file a complaint
before the Office of the Ombudsman. After due investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause
to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Serana for estafa before the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner moved to quash the information alleging that estafa is not among those crimes cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan. She also contended that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over her person as
she was not a public officer with Salary Grade 27, but a mere student regent who represented her
peers. The motion to quash was denied, hence the petition.

9|Page
 CASE DIGEST
Criminal Procedure
Padilla, Joana Liza S.
JD 2-4

ISSUE:

Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction (1) over estafa cases; and (2) over the person of the accused
as a student regent.

RULING:

(1) Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa, as it is one of the felonies committed by public
officials in relation to their office. For sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction, these twin
requirements must be present: (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.
(2) Yes. Petitioner, as a student regent, is a public officer. It is not only the salary grade that
determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The court held that 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.
Petitioner falls under the category of Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned
or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations in Section 4(A)(1)(g)
of P.D. No. 1606 as the Board of Regent performs functions similar to those of a board of
trustees of a non-stock corporation.

10 | P a g e