ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 124644. December 8, 2004]

ESCOBAL vs. GARCHITORENA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 8 2004.

G.R. No. 124644 (Arnel Escobal vs. The Hon. Francis Garchitorena, in his capacity as Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan, Atty. Luisabel Alfonso-Cortez, Executive Clerk of Court IV of the Sandiganbayan, Hon. David C. Naval, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 21, Luz N. Nueca.)

Petitioner Arnel Escobal seeks a reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated February 5, 2004, dismissing his petition for the nullification of the remand of the records of Criminal Case No. 90-3184 to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 21, as ordered by the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan.

The petitioner asserts that the facts showing the intimate relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of official duties were sufficiently established during the preliminary investigation conducted by the trial court. He added that the same was adequately alleged in the Re-Amended information dated December 11, 1995, and that it was particularly stated that the offense charged was committed by the accused in the performance of his duties and/or functions, or in relation to his office. The petitioner further insists that Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, the law which was in effect at the time of the commission of the offense, should be applied.

A careful perusal of the motion shows that the arguments presented in this motion are mere reiterations of the petitioner's arguments as contained in his previous pleadings. Furthermore, the issues raised by the petitioner had been adequately passed upon in the February 5, 2004 Decision of the Court, where the same arguments were found wanting in merit.

The Court reiterates that 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. The jurisdictional requirements must be alleged in the Information. ^[1] cralaw For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4(a) of P.D. 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 of the offender and discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. ^[2] cralaw 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. ^[3] cralaw

It bears stressing that, in the case at bar, the facts showing the intimate relation between the petitioner's office and the discharge of his duties were not alleged in the amended Information. Hence, when the RTC ordered the re-amendment of the Information to include an allegation that the petitioner committed the crime in relation to his office on November 24, 1995, such court had jurisdiction over the offense charged. The trial court erred when it ordered the elevation of the records to the Sandiganbayan because Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7975, amending P.D. No. 1606, ^[4] cralaw was already in effect. The petitioner, a police senior inspector with salary grade "23," was charged with homicide, a felony punishable by reclusion temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged, conformably to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack or merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999).

^[2] cralaw Republic v. em>Asuncion, 231 SCRA 211 (1994).

^[3] cralaw Lacson v. Executive Secretary, supra.

^[4] cralaw P.D. No. 1606 took effect on May 6, 1995.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011