Antiporda, Jr vs.

Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551,559

FACTS

 With weapons and the aid of a Tamaraw FX, the accused Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio
Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla were accused of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos and the
case was filed in the first division of Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, the Court ordered the
prosecution to submit amended information, which was complied evenly and the new
information contained the place where the victim was brought.
 The accused filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that a reinvestigation be conducted and
the issuance of warrants of arrest be deferred but it was denied by the Ombudsman.
 The accused thereafter filed a Motion for New Preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance
and/or recall warrant of arrest issued but the same was also denied. Subsequently, the accused
filed a Motion to Quash Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged,
which was ignored for their continuous refusal to submit their selves to the Court and after their
voluntary appearance which invested the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over their persons, their
motion for reconsideration was again denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

RULING

 YES. They are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 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. However, we hold that the
petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the
supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation dated June 10,
1997 filed with the same court, it was they who "challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is
work connected.

 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. It is undisputed that
the Sandiganbayan had territorial jurisdiction over the case. And we are in accord with the
petitioners when they contended that when they filed a motion to quash it was tantamount to a
voluntary submission to the Court's authority.