Crimpro Case Doctrines

General Principles
1) Cariage v. People

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary
Grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP
officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
proper regional trial 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 orders of regional
trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
jurisdiction as herein provided.
Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility of a person being deprived
of liberty due to a procedural lapse militates against the Courts dispensation of justice,
the Court grants petitioners plea for a relaxation of the Rules.
While the negligence of counsel generally binds the client, the Court has made
exceptions thereto, especially in criminal cases where reckless or gross negligence of
counsel deprives the client of due process of law; when its application will result in
outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or where the interests of justice
so require. It can not be gainsaid that the case of petitioner can fall under any of these
exceptions.
2) Republic v Viaje

The Court resolves to relax the stringent application of the rules, both on the matter
of service of notices to the OSG and its deputized counsel, and on the notice of
appeal. Such relaxation of the rules is not unprecedented.
The Republic is never estopped by the mistakes or error committed by its officials or
agents.
3) People v. Dapitan

Due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present: (1) there must be a court
or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2)
jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired by it over the person of the defendant or over the
property which is the subject of the proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
In People vs. Castillo, et al., 22 We ruled that if an accused has been heard in a court of
competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly processes of law, and
only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, with opportunity to
 be heard, and a judgment awarded within the authority of the constitutional law, then
he has had due process.
4) Alonte v. Savellano

Due process in criminal proceedings, in particular, require (a) that the court or tribunal
trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it; (b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused;
(c) that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and (d) that judgment is
rendered only upon lawful hearing
The existence of the waiver must be positively demonstrated. The standard of waiver
requires that it "not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done
with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."Mere
silence of the holder of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right, and the
courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver.
The submission of the "Affidavit of Desistance," having been filed AFTER the institution
of Criminal Case, DOES NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL of said criminal case;
5) People v. Sola

The Supreme Court could order "a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
justice." The Constitutional Convention of 1971 wisely incorporated the ruling in the landmark
decision of People v. Gutierrez, where Justice J. B. L. Reyes as ponente vigorously and
categorically affirmed: "In the particular case before Us, to compel the prosecution to proceed
to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make
a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been
established."
Equally so the cancellation of the bail bonds is more than justified. Bail was granted to the
accused in the Order of the Municipal Court without hearing the prosecution That is to disregard
the authoritative doctrine enunciated in People v. San Diego. 16 As pointed out by Justice
Capistrano, speaking for the Court: "The question presented before us is, whether the
prosecution was deprived of procedural due process. The answer is in the affirmative. We are of
the considered opinion that whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a
capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the
prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence
that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the
criminal case involved in the instant special civil action, the prosecution should be denied such
an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court
granting bail should be considered void on that ground."

6) Antiporda v. Garchitorena

Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice, that is, for
hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the
merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties
 The Sandiganbayan exercises not only civil but also criminal jurisdiction. Criminal jurisdiction, as
defined in the case of People vs. Mariano, is necessarily the authority to hear and try a particular
offense and impose the punishment for it.
a court acquires jurisdiction to try a criminal case only when the following requisites concur: (1)
the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of, (2) the offense
must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and (3) the person charged with the
offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his
voluntary submission to the court. all three requisites, i.e., jurisdiction over the offense, territory
and person, must concur before a court can acquire jurisdiction to try a case
The original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense
committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the
prosecution belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein.
It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative
relief against his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction.
We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel
and it was thus vested with the authority to order the amendment of the Information.
We hold that the reinvestigation is not necessary anymore. A reinvestigation is proper only if the
accuseds substantial rights would be impaired. In the case at bar, we do not find that their rights
would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended Information is filed without a reinvestigation taking
place. The amendments made to the Information merely describe the public positions held by
the accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was brought when he was kidnapped.
It must here be stressed that a preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and it is often
the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to
enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the
merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and
whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not
place the persons accused in jeopardy. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display
of the parties evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-
grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof.

7) Cruz v. CA

When the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but is adjudged civilly liable, his motion for
reconsideration of the civil aspect must be served not only on the prosecution, also on the
offended party if the latter is not represented by a private counsel. Moreover, if the trial court
has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the accused, and the crime was committed
within its territorial jurisdiction, it necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all matters that the law
requires the court to resolve. This includes the power to order the restitution to the offended
party of real property located in another province.
A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal
the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. However, either
the offended party or the accused may appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the
 acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has generally no interest in appealing the civil
aspect of a decision acquitting the accused.
The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the offended party and the
accused. Thus, any appeal or motion for reconsideration of the civil aspect of a decision in a
criminal case must be served on the other real party in interest. If the offended party appeals or
moves for reconsideration, the accused is necessarily served a copy of the pleading through his
counsel.
Being a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, not the civil procedure rules which pertain to civil action arising from the initiatory
pleading that gives rise to the suit
Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused,
and the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises
jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires the court to resolve. One of the issues in a
criminal case is the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime. Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that [E]very person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Article
104 of the same Code states that civil liability x x x includes restitution.

8) People v. Go

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 death of one of two or more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of the survivor or
survivors.
The Court agrees with petitioner's contention that 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.
When a defendant in a criminal case is brought before a competent court by virtue of a warrant
of arrest or otherwise, in order to avoid the submission of his body to the jurisdiction of the
court he must raise the question of the courts jurisdiction over his person at the very earliest
opportunity. If he gives bail, demurs to the complaint or files any dilatory plea or pleads to the
merits, he thereby gives the court jurisdiction over his person.

9) Cojuangco Jr. v Sandiganbayan

the rule is well-settled that the giving or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount to
submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, it has been held that: When a
defendant in a criminal case is brought before a competent court by virtue of a warrant of arrest
or otherwise, in order to avoid the submission of his body to the jurisdiction of the court he
must raise the question of the courts jurisdiction over his person at the very earliest
opportunity. If he gives bail, demurs to the complaint or files any dilatory plea or pleads to the
merits, he thereby gives the court jurisdiction over his person.
By posting bail, herein petitioner cannot claim exemption from the effect of being subject to the
jurisdiction of respondent court. While petitioner has exerted efforts to continue disputing the
validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest despite his posting bail, his claim has been
 negated when he himself invoked the jurisdiction of respondent court through the filing of
various motions that sought other affirmative reliefs.
Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be waived either expressly or
impliedly. When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court. If he so wishes not to waive this defense, he must do so seasonably by
motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court; otherwise, he shall be
deemed to have submitted himself to that jurisdiction. Where the appearance is by motion for
the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, it must be for the sole
and separate purpose of objecting to said jurisdiction. If the appearance is for any other
purpose, the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Such an appearance gives the court jurisdiction over the person.

10) Miranda v. Tuliao

Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither jurisdiction over the
person of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.
As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. An exception to the rule that filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief
constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission of ones person to the
jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the
avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These
pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included; 18 (2) in
criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused; and (3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest.
In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived by the accused
when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the
special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. Therefore, in
narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the processes of the court
even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a
person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must first submit himself
to the custody of the law.
Quashing a warrant of arrest based on a subsequently filed petition for review with the
Secretary of Justice and based on doubts engendered by the political climate constitutes grave
abuse of discretion.
Dismissing a criminal case on the basis of a decision of this Court in another case with different
accused constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
There is no double jeopardy in the reinstatement of a criminal case dismissed before
arraignment

11) Alva v. Court of Appeals

Basic is the principle that that the right to bail can only be availed of by a person who is in
custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty and it would be premature, x x x, to file a
petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
 Approval of an application for bail on appeal, absent the knowledge of the prosecution of such
application or, at the very least, failing to allow it to object, is not the product of sound judicial
discretion but of impulse and arbitrariness, not to mention violative of respondent Peoples right
of procedural due process.
There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even by the accused himself, but
the right of appeal is not one of them. This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused.
He may avail of it or not, as he pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by implication. When
the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision, he will be deemed
to have waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction
over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance
Moreover, jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the instance of parties, as when an accused
escapes from the custody of the law, but continues until the case is terminated

12) David v. Agbay

custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for
bail
Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in filing his motion for re-determination of
probable cause, the MTC clearly erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over his person.
Notwithstanding such erroneous ground stated in the MTC's order, the RTC correctly ruled that
no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for lack of
merit.

Prescriptive Period for Crimes

13) Jadwell Parking Systems Corp v. Lidua

With regard to the prescription period, Act No. 3326, as amended, is the only statute that
provides for any prescriptive period for the violation of special laws and municipal ordinances.
No other special law provides any other prescriptive period, and the law does not provide any
other distinction.
As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls
the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance.
Jurisprudence exists showing that when the Complaint is filed with the Office of the Prosecutor
who then files the Information in court, this already has the effect of tolling the prescription
period.
For violation of a special law or ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run
from the day of the commission of the violation, and if the same is not known at the time, from
the discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court
and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double
jeopardy.
14) Republic v. Cojuanco

Now R.A. 3019 being a special law, the 10-year prescriptive period should be computed in
accordance with Section 2 of Act 3326, which provides: Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run
from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the
time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation
and punishment.
Two rules for determining when the prescriptive period shall begin to run: first, from the day of
the commission of the violation of the law, if such commission is known; and second, from its
discovery, if not then known, and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
punishment.

15) Sanrio Co. Ltd. C. Lim

Filing Of The Complaint In the DOJ Tolled The Prescriptive Period.

The filing of the complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation interrupts the period of
prescription of criminal responsibility.

16) People v. Galano

The offense of estafa for which respondent accused stands charged clearly has not prescribed.
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of prescription shall commence
to run from the day on which the discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or by their
agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information and shall
commence to run again when the proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted
or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. ...
There is manifestly no jeopardy, because he was not acquitted
he jurisdiction of a court is determined in criminal cases by the allegations of the complaint or
information and not by the result of proof."
People vs. Olarte case, 6 the Court clarified precisely for the guidance of bench and bar that the
true doctrine is that the filing of the compliant in the municipal court, even if it be merely for
purposes of preliminary investigation (where the offense charged is beyond its jurisdiction to try
the case on the merits) should, and does interrupt the period of prescription,

Jurisdiction
17) People v. Ocaya

It is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations
of the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the
trial, much less by the trial judges personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by
the fiscal to the record of the case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving
their evidence at a proper trial.
It is elementary that the mere fact that the evidence presented at the trial would indicate that a
lesser offense outside the trial courts jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial
court of its jurisdiction which had vested in it under the allegations of the information as filed
since" (once the jurisdiction attaches to the person and subject matter of the litigation, the
 subsequent happening of events, although they are of such a character as would have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not operate to past jurisdiction
already attached.

18) Guevarra v. Almodovar

The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the penalty imposable under the
law for the offense and not the penalty ultimately imposed.

19) Gonzales v. Abaya

R.A. No. 7055 - the general rule that members of the AFP and other persons subject to military
law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or
offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code (like coup detat), other special penal laws, or
local ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court. Next, it provides the exception to the
general rule, i.e., where the civil court, before arraignment, has determined the offense to be
service-connected, then the offending soldier shall be tried by a court martial. Lastly, the law
states an exception to the exception, i.e., where the President of the Philippines, in the interest
of justice, directs before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper
civil court.
It bears stressing that the charge against the petitioners concerns the alleged violation of their
solemn oath as officers to defend the Constitution and the duly-constituted authorities. Such
violation allegedly caused dishonor and disrespect to the military profession. In short, the
charge has a bearing on their professional conduct or behavior as military officers. Equally
indicative of the service-connected nature of the offense is the penalty prescribed for the same
dismissal from the service imposable only by the military court. Such penalty is purely
disciplinary in character, evidently intended to cleanse the military profession of misfits and to
preserve the stringent standard of military discipline.

20) People v. Benipayo

the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time
of the institution of the action, unless a latter statute provides for a retroactive application
thereof.
As we have constantly held in Jalandoni, Bocobo, People v. Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
City, Br. 32, Manzano, and analogous cases, we must, in the same way, declare herein that the
law, as it still stands at present, dictates that 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. A subsequent enactment of a law defining the jurisdiction of other courts
cannot simply override, in the absence of an express repeal or modification, the specific
provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction over defamations in writing or
by similar means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses committed in
relation to (public) office, similar to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the MTCs, 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.
21) Samson v. Daway

The settled rule in statutory construction is that in case of conflict between a general law and a
special law, the latter must prevail. Jurisdiction conferred by a special law to Regional Trial
Courts must prevail over that granted by a general law to Municipal Trial Courts

Sandiganbayan
22) Garcia v. Sandiganbayan

violations of R.A. No. 1379 (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.) are placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even though the
proceeding is civil in nature, since the forfeiture of the illegally acquired property amounts to a
penalty.
it is the Ombudsman who should file the petition for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379. However,
the Ombudsmans exercise of the correlative powers to investigate and initiate the proper action
for recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth is restricted only to cases for the recovery
of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed

23) Marcos, Jr. v. Republic

Petitioner conveniently neglects to quote from the preceding paragraphs of Cabal, which clearly
classified forfeiture proceedings as quasi-criminal, not criminal. And even so, Cabal declared that
forfeiture cases partake of a quasi-criminal nature only in the sense that the right against self-
incrimination is applicable to the proceedings, i.e., in which the owner of the property to be
forfeited is relieved from the compulsory production of his books and papers: Generally
speaking, informations for the forfeiture of goods that seek no judgment of fine or
imprisonment against any person are deemed to be civil proceedings in rem. Such proceedings
are criminal in nature to the extent that where the person using the res illegally is the owner or
rightful possessor of it, the forfeiture proceeding is in the nature of a punishment.
Proceedings for forfeitures are generally considered to be civil and in the nature of proceedings
in rem. The statute providing that no judgment or other proceedings in civil cases shall be
arrested or reversed for any defect or want of form is applicable to them. In some aspects,
however, suits for penalties and forfeitures are of quasi-criminal nature and within the reason of
criminal proceedings for all the purposes of * * * that portion of the Fifth Amendment which
declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
The proceeding is one against the owner, as well as against the goods; for it is his breach of the
laws which has to be proved to establish the forfeiture and his property is sought to be
forfeited.
24) Barriga v. Sandiganbayan

Rep. Act No. 8249, provides, that the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over crimes and
felonies committed by public officers and employees, at least one of whom belongs to any of
the five categories thereunder enumerated at the time of the commission of such crimes. There
are two classes of public office-related crimes under subparagraph (b) of Section 4 of Rep. Act
No. 8249: first, those crimes or felonies in which the public office is a constituent element as
defined by statute and the relation between the crime and the offense is such that, in a legal
sense, the offense committed cannot exist without the office; second, such offenses or felonies
which are intimately connected with the public office and are perpetrated by the public officer
or employee while in the performance of his official functions, through improper or irregular
conduct.
The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes and felonies
under the first classification. Considering that the public office of the accused is by statute a
constituent element of the crime charged, there is no need for the Prosecutor to state in the
Information specific factual allegations of the intimacy between the office and the crime
charged, or that the accused committed the crime in the performance of his duties. However,
the Sandiganbayan likewise has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving crimes or
felonies committed by the public officers and employees enumerated in Section (a) (1) to (5)
under the second classification if the Information contains specific factual allegations showing
the intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office of the accused, and
the discharge of his official duties or functions - whether improper or irregular. The requirement
is not complied with if the Information merely alleges that the accused committed the crime
charged in relation to his office because such allegation is merely a conclusion of law

25) People v. Montejo

although public office is not an element of the crime of murder in abstract, as committed by the
main respondents herein, according to the amended information, the offense therein charged is
intimately connected with their respective offices and was perpetrated while they were in the
performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions. Indeed, they had no
personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held
their aforesaid offices.

26) Soller v. Sandiganbayan

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade 27 or
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned
above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may
be, pursuant to their jurisdictions as provided by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, amended.
this Court has interpreted the requirement that an offense be committed in relation to the
office to mean that the offense cannot exist without the office or that the office must be a
constituent element of the crime
For this purpose what is controlling is not whether the phrase committed in violation to public
office appears in the information; what determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is the
 specific factual allegation in the information that would indicate close intimacy between the
discharge of the accuseds official duties and the commission of the offense charged in order to
qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office

27) Serana v. Sandiganbayan

a motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for
petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their
motion to quash. Remedial measures as regards interlocutory orders, such as a motion to quash,
are frowned upon and often dismissed. The evident reason for this rule is to avoid multiplicity of
appeals in a single action.
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation
to their office.
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 and that (b) the
offense is committed in relation to their office.
Petitioner UP student regent is a public officer.
We 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 jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she
is placed there by express provision of law

28) Duncano v. Sandiganbayan

The original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are: (1) officials of the executive branch with
Salary Grade 27 or higher, and (2) officials specifically enumerated in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g),
regardless of their salary grades. While the first part of Section 4 (A) covers only officials of the
executive branch 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 Sandiganbayan.
Those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, provided that they hold the positions enumerated by the law.36 In this
category, it is the position held, not the salary grade, which determines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.37 The specific inclusion constitutes an exception to the general qualification
relating to "officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher
We have held that a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod,40 a department manager of the
Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth),41 a student regent of the University of the
Philippines,42 and a Head of the Legal Department and Chief of the Documentation with
corresponding ranks of Vice-Presidents and Assistant Vice-President of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS)43 fall within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan.
29) Honasan II v. Sandiganbayan

For purposes of investigation and prosecution, Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses
may be subdivided into two classes, to wit: (1) those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and (2)
those falling under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The difference between the two, aside
from the category of the courts wherein they are filed, is on the authority to investigate as
distinguished from the authority to prosecute, such cases.
The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any Ombudsman case may
be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, or by any
Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance, either in their regular capacities or as deputized
Ombudsman prosecutors.
The prosecution of cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct exclusive
control and supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman. In cases cognizable by the regular
Courts, the control and supervision by the Office of the Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman
cases in the sense defined above. The law recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the
Office of the Ombudsman and other investigative agencies of the government in the
prosecution of cases cognizable by regular courts.
The power of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or employees is
not exclusive but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the government such
as the provincial, city and state prosecutors has long been settled in several decisions of the
Court.
The Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan
Law, as amended, do not give to the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses
committed by public officers or employees. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate
offenses involving public officers or employees is concurrent with other government
investigating agencies such as provincial, city and state prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman,
in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take
over, at any stage, from any investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such
cases.

30) Consigna v. People

With regard to the period to file a petition, in Rule 45, the period within which to file is fifteen
(15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from. In contrast to
Rule 65, the petition should be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment,
order or resolution
The relation between the crime and the office contemplated by the Constitution is, in our
opinion, direct and not accidental. To fall into the intent of the Constitution, the relation has to
be such that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist without the office.
Public office is not of the essence of murder. The taking of human life is either murder or
homicide whether done by a private citizen or public servant, and the penalty is the same except
when the perpetrator, being a public functionary took advantage of his office, as alleged in this
case, in which event the penalty is increased.