JURISDICTION
This includes
HANNAH SERRANA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
DOCTRINE: It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan—the Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers
enumerated in P.D. No. 1606. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of
Regents, which includes the UP Student Regent.
GARCIA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
DOCTRINE: The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over actions for forfeiture under
Republic Act No. 1379, albeit the proceeding thereunder is civil in nature—the civil
liability for forfeiture cases does not arise from the commission of a criminal
offense.
Forfeiture Cases and the Plunder Cases have Separate Causes of Action; the Former
Is Civil in Nature while the Latter Is Criminal.
Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides for the
requirements of a valid substituted service of summons: “If the defendant cannot
be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section [personal
service on defendant], service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons
at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof.”
ESCOBAL VS GARCHITORENA
DOCTRINE: 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.
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4(a) of P.D. No.
1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861 over crimes committed by public officers in
relation to their office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate relation
between the office and 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
PEOPLE VS HENRY GO
DOCTRINE: The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of RA 3019 committed by certain
public officers, as enumerated in PD 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249.
private individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories
with the said public officers.
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.
RAMISCAL VS SANDIGANBAYAN
DOCTRINE: In finding of probable cause, it is the Ombudsman who has the full
discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the
Sandiganbayan. Once the case has been filed with the said court, it is the
Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman which has full control of the case.
Sec 7 of Rule 11 of the Rules provides that only one motion for reconsideration or
reinvestigation of an approved order or resolution shall be allowed xxxxx the filing
of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filling of the
corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in
the resolution subject of the motion
Under Sec. 11 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, the arraignment may be suspended
if there exists unsoundness of mind, prejudicial question and a pending petition for
review of the resolution of the prosecutor in the DOJ in which the suspension shall
not exceed 60 days.
PEOPLE VS BENIPAYO
DOCTRINES:
1. Jurisdiction in libel cases belong to the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts.
Article 360 (RPC) as amended by RA 4363, is explicit on which court has jurisdiction
to try cases of written defamations, thus: The criminal and civil action for damages
in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the now RTC of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.
2. 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.

3. The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has exclusive original

jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of RA 3019 committed by certain public
officers, as enumerated in PD 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private
individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the
said public officers.

LACSON VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

DOCTRINE: Under Section 4, par. b of RA 8249, what determines the

Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender; In
enacting RA 8249, the Congress simply restored the original provisions of PD 1606
which does not mention the criminal participation of the public officer as a requisite
to determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.