Lacson vs. Executive Secretary (1999)
All accused (petitioner and petitioner-intervenors
Facts:
1. Eleven people believed to be members of the Kuratong
Baleleng gang, a reported syndicate involve in bank
robberies in Metro Manila were slain by the Anti-Bank
Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG).
Included in the ABRITG were petitioner (Chief
Superintendent Lacson) and petitioner-intervenors
(Chief Superintendent Acop and Senior Superintendent
Zubia).
2. SPO2 delos Reyes, acting on a media expose, stated that
what actually transpired was a summary execution and
not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng and
ABRITG. Ombudsman Desierto created a panel to
investigate what occurred which was headed by
Blancaflor. The panel absolved all PNP members from
any criminal liability, finding it a legitimate police
operation. However, the review board led by Francisco
modified the findings of the panel and recommended the
indictment of 26 respondents, including petitioner and
petitioner-intervenors for multiple charges of murder.
This recommendation was adopted by the ombudsman.
3. Petitioner was among those charged as principal and
Issue:
petitioner-intervenors were among those charged as
accessories in the 11 pieces of information for murder
before the Sandiganbayan. After conducting an
investigation, the ombudsman filed 11 amended pieces
of information before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner was
only charged as an accessory together with petitioner-
intervenors.
4.
included) filed their separate motions, questioning the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that the
jurisdiction falls within the ambit of the Regional Trial
Court. The contention was that, the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan was limited to cases where one or more
of the "principal accused are government officials with
Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher, or PNP officials with the
rank of Chief Superintendent (Brigadier General) or
higher.
5. The Sandiganbayan, in a resolution, admitted the
amended information and ordered the transfer to the
RTC, which has exclusive original jurisdiction under
R.A 7975. The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a
motion for reconsideration. While the motion was
pending, R.A. No. 8249 was approved (consolidation of
House Bill No. 2299, No. 1094 as well as Senate Bill No.
844). This amended the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word principal from
the phrase principal accused in Section 2 of RA No.
7975.
6. Petitioner assails the constitutionality of sec. 4 and sec.
7 of RA 8249.
1. Whether or not the offense charged was committed in
relation to their office to determine if the case falls within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or the Regional
Trial Court?
Ruling: Prosecution failed to show that the offense charged was sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know
intimately connected with the discharge of official duties of what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to
petitioner and petitioner-intervenors. The RTC has jurisdiction pronounce proper judgment.
and not the Sandiganbayan.
At this place, the prosecution failed to establish the
Ratio: intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge
of official function. The amended informations submitted by the
The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution or
prosecution does not discharge facts that the offense committed
statute. Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and not by the was intimately connected with the discharge of function of all
evidence presented by the parties. In order to fall under the accused in their official duties as police officers. What the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Sec. 4 of RA 8249 states that prosecution did was merely a conclusion of law, not
the offense must be committed by the offender in relation to his a factual averment that would show the close intimacy between
office. The 1973 Constitution, as it was reiterated under the 1987 the offense charged and the discharge of the accuseds official
Constitution, mandates the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction duties. Therefore, having failed to establish the offenses being
over criminal cases committed by public officers and charged was intimately related to the discharge of official
employees, including those in government-owned or controlled functions of all the accused, the offense charged in the subject
corporations, must be in relation to their office as may be criminal cases is plain murder which the RTC has exclusive
determined by law. The question now is, whether the offense original jurisdiction.
charge (11 counts of murder) was committed in relation to the
office of the accused PNP officers. The Sandiganbayan is hereby directed to transfer the
criminal case to the Regional Trial Court which have exclusive
As cited in People vs. Montejo “we held that an offense
original jurisdiction. So ordered.
is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it (the
offense) is intimately connected with the office of the offender
and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official
functions”.
Sec. 9 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides as to how
the information must be stated. The provision provides that:
SEC. 9. Cause of Accusation. The acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and
concise language without repetition not necessarily in the terms
of the statute defining the offense, but in such form as is