Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

CENITA M.

CARIAGA VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional
FACTS: trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and
municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to
In issue in the present petition for review is one of jurisdiction. their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
Petitioner, as the municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela with a Salary Grade of Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
24, was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City in Isabela
with three counts of malversation of public funds, defined under Article 217 of the The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
Revised Penal Code. appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or
Branch 20 of the Cauayan RTC, by Joint Decision of June 22, 2004, convicted orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of
petitioner in the three cases. their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
Petitioner, through counsel, in time filed a Notice of Appeal, stating that he jurisdiction as herein provided. x x x (emphasis, italics and
intended to appeal the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals. underscoring supplied).
By Resolution of May 28, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility of a person
for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it is the Sandiganbayan which has exclusive being deprived of liberty due to a procedural lapse militates against the Courts
appellate jurisdiction thereon. dispensation of justice, the Court grants petitioners plea for a relaxation of the
Concomitantly, jurisdiction over the offense is vested with the Rules.
Regional Trial Court considering that the position of Municipal
Treasurer corresponds to a salary grade below 27. Pursuant to For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment
Section 4 of [Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by of justice, such that any rigid and strict application thereof which results in
Republic Act No. 8249], it is the Sandiganbayan, to the technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided.
exclusion of all others, which enjoys appellate jurisdiction
over the offense. Evidently, the appeal to this Court of the WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
conviction for malversation of public funds was improperly and No. 29514 are SET ASIDE. Let the records of the cases be FORWARDED to the
improvidently made. (emphasis and underscoring implied) Sandiganbayan for proper disposition.

ISSUE: The Presiding Judge of Branch 20, Henedino P. Eduarte, of the Cauayan City
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case Regional Trial Court is WARNED against committing the same procedural error,
under pain of administrative sanction.
HELD:

YES. That appellate jurisdiction in this case pertains to the


Sandiganbayan is clear. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended
by Republic Act No. 8249, so directs:

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive


original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

xxxx

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
Antiporda vs. Garchitorena Petitioner: HECTOR TREÑAS

GR No. 133289 Respondent: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


23 December 1999
G.R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012
FACTS
Petitioners were charged with the crime of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos which
was filed before the Sandiganbayan without claiming that one of the accused –
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise
Antiporda – is a public officer who took advantage of this position. The information
was ordered amended by the Court to effectively describe the offense charged jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited
herein and for the court to effectively exercise its jurisdiction. Accused filed a territory.
motion for new preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance and/or recall the
issued warrant of arrest. These were denied. The accused subsequently file a
motion to quash the amended information on the ground that the Sandiganbayan Facts:
lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged. This was denied. A motion for
reconsideration was filed but it was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE 1. Elizabeth Luciaja gave P150,000.00 to Atty. Hector Treñas to assist in the
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter titling of a house and lot located in Iloilo City. Treñas prepared and issued a Deed
of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. He also gave Elizabeth three Revenue
HELD Official Receipts amounting to P120,000. However, when Elizabeth consulted with
Yes. The case of Arula vs. Espino enumerates the following requirements wherein the BIR, she was informed that the receipts were fake. When confronted, Hector
a court acquires jurisdiction to try a criminal case, to wit: (1) the offense is one
admitted to her that the receipts were fake and that he used the money for his
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 other transactions. Elizabeth demanded the return of the money. Thus, the instant
with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant case of Estafa was filed against Hector.
of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court. Petitioners questioned the
2. An Information was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor before the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan over the case yet they insist that
said court acquired jurisdiction over their motion to quash. It is undisputed that the RTC Makati City which rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of
Sandiganbayan had territorial jurisdiction over the case. Filing a motion to quash is Estafa. Petitioner appealed with the CA which also rendered a Decision affirming
tantamount to a voluntary submission to the Court's authority. that of the RTC.

Further, the petitioners are estopped from assailing said Sandiganbayan's 3. Petitioner asserts that nowhere in the evidence presented by the
jurisdiction for in the supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or prosecution does it show that ₱ 150,000 was given to and received by petitioner in
reinvestigation filed with the same court, it was they who challenged the jurisdiction Makati City. Also, the evidence shows that the Receipt issued by petitioner was
of the Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for without any indication of the place where it was issued. Meanwhile, the Deed of
Reconsideration that the same crime is work connected. It is a well-settled rule that Sale with Assumption of Mortgage prepared by petitioner was signed and notarized
a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against in Iloilo City. Petitioner claims that the only logical conclusion is that the money was
his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or actually delivered to him in Iloilo City, especially since his residence and office
question the same jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case were situated there as well. Absent any direct proof as to the place of delivery, one
because of estoppels and it was thus vested with the authority to order the must rely on the disputable presumption that things happened according to the
amendment of the Information pursuant to Rule 110, Sec. 14 of the Rules of Court. ordinary course of nature.
G.R. No. 192565 February 28, 2012

Issue: UNION BANK OF THE, PHILIPPINES AND DESI TOMAS vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. Whether RTC Makati has jurisdiction over the controversy.

FACTS:

Ruling + Ratio: Desi Tomas was charged with perjury for making a false narration in a Certificate
against Forum Shopping. It was alleged that Tomas stated under oath that the
Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in another tribunal or agency aside from that which is
The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for the collection of sum of
action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. For jurisdiction to be acquired by
money with prayer of writ of replevin filed against Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and
courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its
a John Doe.
essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has Tomas filed a motion to quash arguing that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati
jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by City does not have jurisdiction over the case as, though it was notarized in Makati,
the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an the Certificate against Forum Shopping was used or submitted before the Regional
offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Trial Court of Pasay City.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information. In this case, the prosecution failed to
show that the offense of estafa was committed within the jurisdiction of the RTC of ISSUE:
Makati City. Also, the Affidavit of Complaint executed by Elizabeth does not contain
any allegation as to where the offense was committed. Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City has jurisdiction over the
case at bar.
Aside from the lone allegation in the Information, no other evidence was presented
by the prosecution to prove that the offense or any of its elements was committed
in Makati City. There is nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the
HELD:
prosecution that points to where the offense, or any of its elements, was
committed. Yes, the Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the case at bar.
There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, The RTC of Tomas’ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was allegedly shown
that city has no jurisdiction over the case. when she made the false declarations in the Certificate against Forum Shopping
before a notary public in Makati City, despite her knowledge that the material
The case is REFERRED to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and
statements she subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus, Makati City is the
recommendation pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is the proper court to try the perjury case
DISPOSITION: There being no showing that the offense was committed within against Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Makati, The RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case. Criminal Procedure as all the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury
were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.
MAGNO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. >The Ombudsman maintains that Atty. Sitoy may intervene in the case pursuant to
Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court (Where the civil action for recovery of
GR No. 171542, April 6, 2011; Brion, J. civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended
party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.)

FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has the appellate jurisdiction over the
>The Office of the Ombudsman filed an information for multiple frustrated murder
RTC’c decision in not allowing Atty. Sitoy to prosecute the case on behalf of the
and double attempted murder against several accused, including MAGNO, who
Ombudsman – NONE
were public officers working under the NBI

>Magno, in open court, objected to the formal appearance and authority of Atty.
Sitoy, who was there as private prosecutor to prosecute the case for and on behalf DECISION:
of the Office of the Ombudsman
The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, as well as its Resolution is NULL
>The RTC issued an Order, ruling that “the Ombudsman is proper, legal and AND VOID for having been issued without jurisdiction
authorized entity to prosecute this case to the exclusion of any other entity/person
other than those authorized under R.A. 6770. This prompted the respondents to REASON:
file a petition for certiorari before the CA.
> PD No. 1606 created the Sandiganbayan. Section 4 thereof establishes the
>CA original decision: Declared that the private prosecutor may appear for the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction:
petitioner in the case, but only insofar as the prosecution of the civil aspect of the
case is concerned. “B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimes
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection of this
>CA AMENDED decision: Ruling that the private prosecutor may appear for the section in relation to their office.”
petitioner in Criminal Case to intervene in the prosecution of the offense charged in
collaboration with any lawyer deputized by the Ombudsman to prosecute the case. >In the present case, the CA erred when it took cognizance of the petition for
This amended CA decision in turn made Magno file for a review on certiorari under certiorari. The OMBUDSMAN SHOULD HAVE FILED THE PETITION FOR
Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure before the SC. CERTIORARI WITH THE SANDIGANBAYAN, which has EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
JURISDICTION over the RTC since the accused are public officials charged of
PETITIONER”S ARGUMENTS committing crimes in their capacity as Investigators of the NBI

>CA did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari; the power to >JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW, and the CA’s judgment, issued
hear and decide that question is with the Sandiganbayan without jurisdiction, is VOID. There is no rule in procedural law as basic as the
precept that jurisdiction is conferred by law and any judgment, order or resolution
>The private prosecutor cannot be allowed to intervene for the respondents. issued without it is void and cannot be given any effect. This rule applies even if
Section 31 of RA No. 6770 does not allow the Ombudsman to deputize private the issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final
practitioners to prosecute cases for and on behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman. judgment
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

>The Ombudsman did not address the contention that the Sandiganbayan, not the
CA, has appellate jurisdiction over the RTC in this case.
Fukuzume vs People (2005) G.R. 143647 direct examination that he gave the amount of P50,000.00 to Fukuzume in the
latter’s house. It is not disputed that Fukuzume’s house is located in Parañaque.

Facts:
Settled is the rule that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and
the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight
considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in court,
Sometime in July 1991, Yu, a businessman engaged in buying and selling
the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate.
aluminum scrap wires, accompanied by Jovate, went to the house of Fukuzume in
Parañaque. Jovate introduced Fukuzume to Yu telling the latter that Fukuzume is
from Furukawa Electric Corporation and that he has at his disposal aluminum
scrap wires. Fukuzume confirmed this information and told Yu that the scrap wires More importantly, we find nothing in the direct or cross-examination of Yu to
belong to Furukawa but they are under the care of NAPOCOR. Believing establish that he gave any money to Fukuzume or transacted business with him
Fukuzume’s representation to be true, Yu agreed to buy the aluminum scrap wires with respect to the subject aluminum scrap wires inside or within the premises of
from Fukuzume. This transaction later turned uneventful as Fukuzume failed to the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati, or anywhere in Makati for that matter. Venue in
comply his undertaking to return Yu’s money when Yu was refused by NAPOCOR, criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. Citing Uy vs. Court of
thus, prompting Yu to file an estafa case. Appeals: However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense
was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction.
Upon arraignment, Fukuzume pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued, finding the accused
guilty as charged. Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, he appealed to CA but CA
affirmed the trial courts’ decision modifying only the penalty, hence, the petition The crime was alleged in the Information as having been committed in Makati.
before the SC. However, aside from the sworn statement executed by Yu, the prosecution
presented no other evidence, testimonial or documentary, to corroborate Yu’s
sworn statement or to prove that any of the above-enumerated elements of the
offense charged was committed in Makati. From the foregoing, it is evident that the
Issue: WON the trial court of Makati has jurisdiction over the offense charged.
prosecution failed to prove that Fukuzume committed the crime of estafa in Makati
or that any of the essential ingredients of the offense took place in the said city.
Hence, the judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of the crime of estafa
Held: SC answered on the negative. We agree with Fukuzume’s contention that should be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice, however, to the filing
the CA erred in ruling that the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the offense of appropriate charges with the court of competent jurisdiction.
charged.

The CA ruled on the basis of the sworn statement of Yu filed with the NBI and the
affidavit subscribed by Fukuzume. With respect to the sworn statement of Yu,
which was presented in evidence by the prosecution, it is clear that he alleged that
he gave Fukuzume the amount of P50,000.00 at the Intercontinental Hotel in
Makati. However, we agree with Fukuzume’s contention that Yu testified during his
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended
to make full disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law is like
G.R. No. 180705, November 27, 2012, Velasco, Jr., J. a scabbarded saber that cannot feint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn.
The publication must be of the full text of the law since the purpose of publication is
to inform the public of the contents of the law. Mere referencing the number of the
It is well-settled that laws must be published to be valid. In fact, publication is an presidential decree, its title or whereabouts and its supposed date of effectivity
indispensable condition for the effectivity of a law. would not satisfy the publication requirement.

Facts: In this case, while it incorporated the PCA-Cojuangco Agreement by reference,


Section 1 of P.D. 755 did not in any way reproduce the exact terms of the contract
R.A. 6260 was enacted creating the Coconut Investment Company (CIC) to in the decree. Neither was a copy thereof attached to the decree when published.
administer the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF), which, under Section 8 thereof, The SC cannot, therefore, extend to the said Agreement the status of a law.
was to be sourced from a P0.55 levy on the sale of every 100 kg. of copra. Consequently, the Court joined the Sandiganbayan in its holding that the PCA-
Charged with the duty of collecting and administering the Fund was Philippine Cojuangco Agreement shall be treated as an ordinary transaction between
Coconut Administration (PCA). Like COCOFED with which it had a legal linkage, agreeing minds to be governed by contract law under the Civil Code.
the PCA, by statutory provisions scattered in different coco levy decrees, had its
share of the coco levy. Per Cojuangco’s own admission, PCA paid, out of the
Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund (CCSF), the entire acquisition price for the
72.2% option shares. The list of First United Bank (FUB) stockholders included
Cojuangco with 14,440 shares and PCA with 129,955 shares. It would appear later
that, pursuant to the stipulation on maintaining Cojuangco’s equity position in the
bank, PCA would cede to him 10% of its subscriptions to (a) the authorized but
unissued shares of FUB and (b) the increase in FUB’s capital stock. In all, from the
"mother" PCA shares, Cojuangco would receive a total of 95,304 FUB (UCPB)
shares broken down as follows: 14,440 shares + 10% (158,840 shares) + 10%
(649,800 shares) = 95,304.

Issue:

Whether or not the agreement between PCA and Cojuangco can be accorded the
status of a law without publication.

Ruling:

NO. It bears to stress at this point that the PCA-Cojuangco Agreement referred to
above in Section 1 of P.D. 755 was not reproduced or attached as an annex to the
same law. It is well-settled that laws must be published to be valid. In fact,
publication is an indispensable condition for the effectivity of a law. Tañada v.
Tuvera (G.R. No. L-63915, 1986) said as much: Publication of the law is
indispensable in every case x x x. Laws must come out in the open in the clear
light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets.
Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding

Potrebbero piacerti anche