I.

DUE PROCESS
Alonte vs. Savellano
(GR No. 131652; March 9, 1998)

Facts: Bayani M. Alonte was accused of raping Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan with accomplice Buenaventura
Concepcion. The case was brought before the Regional Trial Court of Biňan. The counsel and the
prosecutor later moved for a change of venue due to alleged intimidation. While the change of venue was
pending, Juvie executed an affidavit of desistance, allegedly due to media pressure. The prosecutor
continued on with the case and the change of venue was done notwithstanding opposition from Alonte.
The case was raffled to the Manila RTC under Judge Savellano. Savellano found probable cause and had
ordered the arrest of Alonte and Concepcion. Savellano sentenced both accused to reclusion perpetua.
Savellano commented that Alonte waived his right to due process when he did not cross examine Juvie
when clarificatory questions were raised about the details of the rape and on the voluntariness of her
desistance.

Issue: Whether or not Alonte has been denied criminal due process.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding on the case
due to animosity between him and the parties. There is no showing that Alonte waived his right. The
standard of waiver requires that it “not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and
done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Mere silence of
the holder of the right should not be construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must indulge every
reasonable presumption against waiver.

Alva vs. CA
(G.R. No. 157331 April 12, 2006)

FACTS: Arnold Alva was accused of defrauding Yumi Veranga by means of false manifestation and
fraudulent representation to the effect that he could process the latter’s application for U.S. Visa provided
she would give the amount of P120,000.00. By means of other similar deceit, induced and succeeded in
inducing said Yumi Veranga to give and deliver to said accused the amount of P120,000.00. Petitioner was
charged of the crime of estafa.

ISSUE: Whether or not jumped bail and eluded arrest until the present, the accused lost his right to appeal
his conviction

RULING: Yes, the act of jumping bail will result in the outright dismissal of petitioner’s appeal. As pointed
out by the Court in the case of People v. Mapalao, the reason for said rule is that: “once an accused
escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in
court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived
any right to seek relief from the court.”

Antiporda vs Garchitorena
(G.R. No. 133289. December 23, 1999)
Facts: Mayor Licerio Antiporda and others were charged for the crime of kidnapping, 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 or not reinvestigation must be made anew

Held: No. A reinvestigation is proper only if the accused’s substantial rights would be impaired. In the case
at bar, we do not find that their rights would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended Information is filed
without a reinvestigation taking place. The amendments made to the Information merely describe the
public positions held by the accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was brought when he was
kidnapped.

The purpose of a preliminary investigation has been achieved already and there is no cogent nor
compelling reason why a reinvestigation should still be conducted.

Cariaga v People
(G.R. No. 180010; July 30, 2010)

Facts: Petitioner, as the municipal treasure of Cabatuan, Isabela with a Salary Grade of 24, was charged
before the RTC of Cauayan City with three counts of malversation of public funds. The RTC convicted the
petitioner. Petitioner, through counsel filed a Notice of Appeal, stating that he intended to appeal the
decision to the CA.

Appeal, was dismissed by CA for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it is the Sandiganbayn which has exclusive
appellate jurisdiction thereon.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case

Held: Yes. The appellate jurisdiction in this case pertains to the Sandiganbayan. Section 4 of PD No. 1606,
as amended by RA No. 8249, provides for the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan over (1) violations of Republic
Act No. 3019, (2) crimes committed by public officers and employees embraced in Title VII of the Revised
Penal Code, and (3) Other crimes or offenses committed by public officers or employees in relation to
their office.
 Cojuangco v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 134307. December 21, 1998)

Cruz v CA
(G.R. No. 123340; August 29, 2002)

Facts: Petitioner executed before a Notary Public in the City of Manila an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of
a parcel of land stating that she was the sole surviving heir of the registered owner when in fact she knew
there were other surviving heirs. The RTC rendered its decision acquitting petitioner on the ground of
reasonable doubt. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Motion was subsequently denied.
Petitioner, again moved for a reconsideration. The RTC denied the same. Under the Interim Rules, no
party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment.

Left with no recourse, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CA to nullify the
two assailed orders of the trial court. Petitioner also asked the CA to compel the trial court to resolve her
motion for reconsideration of the decision. The CA denied due course to the petition and dismissed the
case for being insufficient in substance

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in not finding that the petitioner was denied due process

Held: The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted in the criminal action unless reserved by
the offended party. In the instant case, the offended party did not reserve the civil action and the civil
action was deemed instituted in the criminal action. Although the trial court acquitted petitioner of the
crime charged, the acquittal, grounded on reasonable doubt, did not extinguish the civil liability. Thus, the
Manila trial court had jurisdiction to decide the civil aspect of the instant case - ordering restitution even
if the parcel of land is located in Bulacan.

David v Agbay
(G.R. No. 199113; March 18, 2015)

Miranda v Tuliao
(G.R. No. 158763; March 31, 2006)

Facts: Two Informations for murder were filed against 5 police officers including SPO2 Maderal in the RTC
of Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila. The RTC convicted the accused and
sentenced them two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at
that time being at large. Upon automatic review, the SC acquitted the accused on the ground of
reasonable doubt.
In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. Tuliao, father of the victimm filed a criminal complaint for murder
against the petitioners. Acting Presiding Judge Tumaliuan issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioners
and SPO2 Maderal.

Then, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and
to recall or quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion, Judge Tumaliuan noted the
absence of the petitioners and issued a Joint order denying the urgent motion on the ground that since
the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the
court.

Issues: Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the
jurisdiction of the court.

Whether or not a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Held. No, one who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Court.
Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.

Citing Santiago v. Vasquez, there is a distinction between the custody of the law and jurisdiction over the
person. Custody of the law is required before the Court can act upon the application for bail, but is not
required for the adjudication of other relief sought by the defendant where by mere application, thereof,
constitutes a waiver of the defence of lack of jurisdiction over the person accused.

People v Martin
(G.R. No. 906625; May 23, 1991)

People v Go
(G.R. No. 163539; March 25, 2014)

People v Sola
(G.R. No. 56158-64; March 17, 1981)

Facts: Seven (7) separate complaints for murder were thus filed against Pablo Sola and 18 other persons.
The municipal court found probable cause against the accused and ordered their arrest. However, without
giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the
court granted them the right to post bail for their temporary release. Pablo Sola and two others have since
been released from detention. The witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears
that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan, their safety could be jeopardized. At least 2 of the accused
are official with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In addition, most
of the accused remained at large.

Issue: Whether or not the bail bond should be cancelled for failure to abide by the basic requirement that
the prosecution be heard in a case where the accused is charged with a capital offense, prior to bail being
granted.

Held: The bail bonds must be cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of Executive Judge Alfonso
Baguio for such hearing. Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense
be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an
opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before
the court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil
action, the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural
due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground.

II. HABEAS CORPUS

AMPATUAN vs. MACARAIG

FACTS: PO1 Ampatuan has been pointed out as the male perpetrator by the MPD Homicide Section in the
the murder case of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, Head of the COMELEC Legal Department. Inquest proceedings
were conducted by the Manila Prosecutor’s Office. Probable cause was found to charge PO1 Ampatuan
with Grave Misconduct (Murder). The City Prosecutor of Manila recommended that the case against PO1
Ampatuan be set for further investigation and that the latter be released from custody unless he is being
held for other charges/legal grounds. Petitioner, who is the wife of PO1 Ampatuan, filed a Petition for the
Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus before the RTC of Manila on 22 April 2008. On 24 April 2008, RTC
ordered the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Seeking the reversal of RTC, the respondents averred that the filing of the administrative case against PO1
Ampatuan is a process done by the PNP and this Court has no authority to order the release of the subject
police officer. Respondent stressed that the resignation by PO1 Ampatuan has not been acted by the
appropriate police officials of the PNP, and that the administrative case was filed while PO1 Ampatuan is
still in the active status of the PNP. The RTC reversed and dismissed the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or or not PO1 Basser B. Ampatuan was validly detained

HELD: In this case, PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under Restrictive Custody. Republic Act No. 6975 (also
known as the Department of Interior and Local Government Act of 1990), as amended by Republic Act
No. 8551 (also known as the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998), clearly
provides that members of the police force are subject to the administrative disciplinary machinery of the
PNP.

Given that PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under restrictive custody, such constitutes a valid argument
for his continued detention. This Court has held that a restrictive custody and monitoring of movements
or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention
or restraint of liberty.

Salibo v Warden of Quezon City

Facts: Datukan Salibo was suspected to be Batukan Malang who is an accused in the Maguindanao
Massacre Case. Petitioner presented himself to the police to clary his name, but was later detained.
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the CA. THe latter returned the writ to the RTC, wherein a
hearing was held. RTC granted the petition. Upon appeal by the respondent in the CA, the latter reversed
the decision, SC ruled similarly to that of RTC holding that Salibo was not validly detained.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was validly detained

Held: Petitioner Salibo was not arrested by virtue of any warrant charging him of an offense. He was not
restrained under a lawful process or an order of a court. He was illegally deprived of his liberty, and,
therefore, correctly availed himself of a Petition for Habeas Corpus.

The police officers had no probable cause to arrest petitioner Salibo without a warrant. They deprived
him of his right to liberty without due process of law, for which a petition for habeas corpus may be issued.

Mangila v Pangilinan
(G.R. No. 160739; July 17, 2013)

Facts: Anita Mangila, petitioner, was charged with seven of syndicated estafa. The complaint against her
arose from recruiting and promising employment to private complainants as overseas contract workers
in Toronto, Canada without lawful authority from POEA.

By reason of the charged against petitioner, a warrant of arrest was issued against her. She was arrested.
She then filed a petition for habeas corpus before the CA alleging that she is deprived of the remedy of a
motion to quash or a motion to recall the warrant of arrest because Judge Pangilinan already forwarded
the entire records of the case to the City Prosecutor who had no authority to lift or recall the warrant. CA
denied the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was validly detained

Held: Habeas corpus is a speedy and effective remedy devised to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.
Petitioner’s restraint in this case in NOT unlawful. The petitioner had been arrested and detained by virtue
of the valid warrant issued for her arrest. Her proper remedy was to bring the supposed irregularities
attending the conduct of the (preliminary investigation) and the issuance of the warrant for her arrest to
the attention of the City Prosecutor for appropriate action.

III. JURISDICTION
Gonzales v Abaya
(G.R. No. 164007 August 10, 2006)

FACTS: On July 27, 2003 at around 1:00 a.m., more than 300 heavily armed junior officers and enlisted
men of the AFP entered the premises of the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments on Ayala Avenue,
Makati City, where they disarmed the security guards and planted explosive devices around the building.
They then declared their withdrawal of support from their Commander-in-Chief and demanded that she
resign as President of the Republic.
After much negotiation, the group finally laid down their arms. Subsequently, an Information for coup
d’etat was filed against them with the RTC, at the same time that they were tried at court martial for
conduct unbecoming an officer. They question the jurisdiction of the court martial, contending that the
RTC ordered that their act was not service-connected and that their violation of Art. 96 of the Articles of
War (RA 7055) was absorbed by the crime of coup d’etat.

ISSUE: Whether the act complained of was service-connected and therefore cognizable by court martial
or absorbed by the crime of coup d'etat cognizable by regular courts

HELD: The Court held that the offense is service-connected. It bears stressing that the charge against the
petitioners concerns the alleged violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend the Constitution and
the duly-constituted authorities. Such violation allegedly caused dishonor and disrespect to the military
profession. In short, the charge has a bearing on their professional conduct or behavior as military officers.
Equally indicative of the “service-connected” nature of the offense is the penalty prescribed for the same
– dismissal from the service – imposable only by the military court.

Guevarra v. Almodovar
(G.R. No. 75256; January 26, 1982)

Facts: In the course of a target-shooting bottle caps between children, Teodoro, who was 11 years old,
was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his unfortunate death. The examining fiscal after
investigation exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the unfortunate appeared to be an
accident. Victim’s parents appealed to Ministry of Justice, who ordered fiscal to file a case against
petitioner for Homicide through reckless imprudence. On October 25, 1985, the petitioner moved to
quash the said information.

His primary argument was that the term discernment connotes intent under the exempting circumstance
found under Article 12, Section 3 of the RPC. If this was true, then no minor between the age of 9 to 15
may be convicted of quasi offense under Article 265 which is criminal negligence. On April 4, 1986, the
said motion was denied and another part was deferred until evidence shall have been presented during
trial. A petition for certiorari was filed.

ISSUES: Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the fact that it did not
pass thru the barangay lupon

HELD: Yes. The petitioner’s contention that he was entitled to a two-degree privileged mitigating
circumstance due to his minority because of P.D. 1508. He argued that this can be applied to his case
because the penalty imposable is reduced to not higher than arresto menor from an original arresto mayor
maximum to prision correccional medium as prescribed in Article 365 of the RPC.

The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the penalty imposable under the law for
the offense and not the penalty ultimately imposed.

People v Benipayo
 (G.R. No. 154473; April 24, 2009)

Facts: Benipayo, then Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), delivered a speech in UP-
Diliman Campus. Such speech was subsequently published in Manila Bulletin.

Petitioner corporation, believing that it was the one alluded to by the respondent filed, an Affidavit-
Complaint for libel. The City Prosecutor filed an Information for libel against the respondent. Respondent
moved for the dismissal of the case on the assertion that the trial court had no jurisdiction over his person
for he was an impeachable officer and thus, could not be criminally prosecuted before any court during
his incumbency. Assuming he can be criminally prosecuted, it was the Office of the Ombudsman that
should investigate him and the case should be filed with the Sandiganbayan.

The RTC, considering that the alleged libel was committed by respondent in relation to his office,
dismissed the criminal case. Accordingly, it was the Sandiganbayan that had jurisdiction over the case to
the exclusion of all other courts.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case

Held: The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation to (public) office
did not divest the RTC of its exclusive and original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless
of whether the offense is committed in relation to office. Since jurisdiction over written defamations
exclusively rests in the RTC without qualification, it is unnecessary and futile for the parties to argue on
whether the crime is committed in relation to office.

People v Ocaya
(G.R. No. L-47448. May 17, 1978)

Facts: A charge of serious physical injuries was filed against private respondents but Judge Ocaya after
scanning the records and noting that the medical certificate stated that the injuries would require medical
attention from seven (7) to ten (10) days and therefore may either be slight or less serious physical injuries
only and without receiving the evidence or hearing the witnesses, precipitately dismissed the information
for lack of jurisdiction on the erroneous notion that in physical injury cases, the duration of the treatment
of the injury inflicted on the victim as indicated in the medical certificate determines the jurisdiction of
the court.

The MR was denied; hence, the fiscal filed the petition for certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Ocaya committed a grave abuse of discretion in precipitately dismissing the
case for alleged lack of jurisdiction

Held: Yes. It is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations
of the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial, much
less by the trial judge’s personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by the fiscal to the record
of the case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving their evidence at a proper trial.
It is equally elementary that the mere fact that evidence presented at the trial would indicate that a lesser
offense outside the trial court’s jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial court of its
jurisdiction which had vested in it under the allegations of the information as filed since" (once) the
jurisdiction attaches to the person and subject matter of the litigation, the subsequent happening of
events, although they are of such a character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance, will not operate to oust jurisdiction already attached."

Samson v Daway
(G.R. No. 160054-55; July 21, 2004)

FACTS: Two informations for unfair competition that were filed alleged that Samson distributed, sold
and/or offered for sale CATERPILLAR products which are closely identical to and/or imitations of the
authentic Caterpillar products and likewise using trademarks, symbols and/or designs as would cause
confusion, mistake or deception on the part of the buying public.

Samson filed a motion to suspend the arraignment and other proceedings in view of the existence of an
alleged prejudicial question involving a civil case for unfair competition pending with the same branch.

The TC judge denied the motion and arraignment ensued. Thereafter, Samson filed a motion to quash
the informations contending that the offense is cognizable by the Municipal Trial Courts and not by the
Regional Trial Court, per R.A. No. 7691. The TC judge denied the motion. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases for violation of intellectual
property rights

Held: Yes, the RTC has jurisdiction. The settled rule in statutory construction is that in case of conflict
between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail. Jurisdiction conferred by a special law to
Regional Trial Courts must prevail over that granted by a general law to Municipal Trial Courts.

IV. SANDIGANBAYAN

Adaza v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 154886; July 28, 2005)

Facts: DPWH awarded to PTA of Manawan National High School (MNHS) a contract for the construction
of a school building. Upon the completion of the project, PTA failed to receive the last installment payment
amounting to P20,847.17.

PTA president Felix Mejorda was informed by Hazel Peñaranda, DPWH Cashier, that the cheque for
P20,847.17 had been released to Ludwig H. Adaza, municipal mayor of Jose Dalman. In the acknowledging
receipt, he found Adaza’s signature. Mejorda’s forged was found in the dorsal portion of the the DBP
Cheque issued to payee together with Aristela Adaza’s signature, wife of Adaza. The Sadiganbayan found
Adaza guilty of the offense charged.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case

HELD: The information does not allege that there was an intimate connection between the discharge of
official duties and the commission of the offense. Clearly therefore, as the alleged falsification was not an
offense committed in relation to the office of the accused, it did not come under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. It follows that all its acts in the instant case are null and void ab initio.

Barriga v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. no. 161784-86; April 26, 2005)

Facts: Virginio Villamor and Dinah Barriga, the Municipal Mayor and Municipal Accountant, respectively
of Carmen, Cebu were accused of misappropriating, or embezzling and converting into their own personal
use and benefit the public fund they had in their possession for the Corte-Cantumog Water System
project. Despite demands for them to account for said funds, they have failed to do so, to the damage
and prejudice of the government. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash. Motion was denied by the
Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case

Held: Based on the allegations of the Amended Informations and Rep. Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan
has original jurisdiction over the crimes of malversation and illegal use of public funds charged in the
Amended Informations subject of this petition.

The Court has also ruled that one who conspires with the provincial treasurer in committing six counts of
malversation is also a co-principal in committing those offenses, and that a private person conspiring with
an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation.

Consigna v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 175759-51; April 02, 2014)

Facts: Petitioner, the Municipal Treasurer of General Luna, Surigao del Norte, obtained as loan from
Hermelina Moleta to pay for the salary of the employees of the municipality and to construct the
municipal gymnasium. As payment, petitioner issued 3 LBP check signed by Mayor Jame Rusillon.
Subsequent to failure to comply with Moleta’s demand for payment, Moleta deposited the check to her
LBP account but the cheques were dishonored. Upon verification, LBP informed Moleta that the
municipality’s account was already closed and transferred to DBP, and that petitioner, the municipal
treasurer, has been relieved from her position. Hence, Moleta filed with the Sandiganbayan two (2) sets
of Information against petitioner and Rusillon. Petitioner was found guilty.

Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan commited a reversible error for finding petitioner guilty of estafa,
based on information which does not specifically designate provision allegedly violated
Held: No. The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the
information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are
conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.

Crisostomo v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 152398; April 14, 2015)

Duncano v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 191894; July 15, 2015)

Facts: Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano was the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). On
March 24, 2009, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Office of the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case
against him for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713. It was alleged that he
willfully, unlawfully and criminally failed to disclose in his Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and
Networth (SALN) for the year 2002.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the petitioner.

Held: No. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No.
3019, as amended, unless committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of regional
director and higher with Salary Grade “27” or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office.

Garcia v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 165835; June 22, 2005)

Facts: The Office of the Ombudsman filed Petition with Verified Urgent Ex Parte Application for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment before the Sandiganbayan against petitioner, his wife, and
three sons, seeking forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 1379, as amended.
It was alleged that the Office of the Ombudsman has determined that a prima facie case exists against
Maj. Gen. Garcia and the other respondents therein who hold such properties for, with, or on behalf of,
Maj. Gen. Garcia, since during his incumbency as a soldier and public officer he acquired huge amounts of
money and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer and his other lawful
income, if any.

Issue: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate, initiate and prosecute such
petitions for forfeiture (instead of the Solicitor General)

Held: The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate, initiate and prosecute petitions for forfeiture was
granted with the enactment of RA No. 6770. Section 15 par. 11 of the said law provides the power of the
Ombudsman to include the authority, among others, to “investigate and initiate the proper action for the
recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed after 25 February 1986 and the prosecution of
the parties involved therein.” Therefore, it is the Ombudsman who should file the petition for forfeiture
under RA No. 1379 but is restricted only to cases for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth
amassed after 25 February 1986. The Ombudsman, therefore, acted within its authority.

Honasan v The Panel of Investigating Prosecutor of the DOJ

Lacson v Executive Secretary

Facts: Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang were slain by elements of
the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). A panel of investigators were formed to
investigate whether what actually transpired was a summary execution or a shoot-out. Said panel found
the incident as a legitimate police operation. However, a review board modified the panel’s finding and
recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six. After a reinvestigation, the
Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan, where petitioner was charged only
as an accessory. The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Issue: Whether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng was
committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers which is essential to the determination
whether the case falls within the Sandiganbayan’s or Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction.

Held: For failure to show in the amended information that the charge of murder was intimately connected
with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject
criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court and not the Sandiganbayan.

Marcos v Republic of the Philippines

Facts: On April 212, the SC rendered a Decision affirming the Decision of the Sandiganbayan declaring all
the assets of Arelma, S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, forfeited in favor of the
Republic of the Philippines. The petitioners were unable to overturn the prima facie presumption of ill-
gotten wealth. Petitioners seek reconsideration of the denial of their petition.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan must first acquire territorial jurisdiction over the Arelma
proceeds before the judgment may be enforced

Held: No. The execution of a Court's judgment is merely a ministerial phase of adjudication. The authority
of the Sandiganbayan to rule on the character of these assets as ill-gotten cannot be conflated with
petitioner's concerns as to how the ruling may be effectively enforced.

People v Montejo
(G.R. No. L-14595; May 31, 1960)
Facts: A sub-police station was established upon the orders of Mayor Leroy S. Brown in sitio Tipo-Tipo,
district of Lamitan, City of Basilan. Said sub-station was composed regular and special policemen all armed
with pistols and high power guns. On June 4, 1958, Yokan Awalin Tebag was arrested upon orders of
Mayor Brown without any warrant or complaint filed in court. Tebag was allegedly maltreated while being
taken into the sub-station and was again mauled at the sub-station, said torture resulted to Tebag’s death.
The private respondents were then charged with the crime of murder before the Court of First Instance
of the cities of Zamboanga and Basilan.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime charged is committed in relation to the offices of the private respondents

Held: Yes, a mere perusal of the amended information therein readily elicits an affirmative answer.
According to the amended information, the offense therein charged is intimately connected with their
respective offices and was perpetrated while they were in the performance, though improper or irregular,
of their official functions. Indeed, they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not
have committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices.

Rodriguez v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 141710; March 03, 2004)

Sanchez v Demetrio
(G.R. No. 111771-77; November 09, 1993)

Serana vs Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 162059; January 22, 2008)

Facts: Accused movant charged for the crime of estafa is a government scholar and a student regent of
the University of the Phillipines, Diliman, Quezon City. While in the performance of her official functions,
she represented to former President Estrada that the renovation of the Vinzons Hall of the UP will be
renovated and renamed as Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall and for which purpose accused
requested the amount of P15,000,000.00.

The Ombudsman contends that petitioner, as a member of the BOR is a public officer, since she had the
general powers of administration and exercise the corporate powers of UP. Compensation is not an
essential part of public office.

Issue: Whether or not a government scholar and UP student regent is a public officer.

Held: Yes. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of
trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is a public officer as
contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Hence,
Petitioner is a public officer by express mandate of P.D.No. 1606 and jurisprudence.

Soller v Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 144261-62; May 09, 2001)
Facts: Jerry Macabael a municipal guard, was shot and killed along the national highway at Bansud,
Oriental Mindoro while driving a motorcycle together with petitioner Sollers son, Vincent M. Soller. His
body was brought to a medical clinic located in the house of petitioner Dr. Prudente Soller, the Municipal
Mayor, and his wife Dr. Preciosa Soller, who is the Municipal Health Officer.

On the basis of the foregoing incident, a complaint was later filed against the petitioners by the widow of
Jerry Macabael with the Office of the Ombudsman charging them with conspiracy to mislead the
investigation of the fatal shootout of Jerry Macabael.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case

Held: For failure to show in the informations that the charges were intimately connected with the
discharge of the official functions of accused Mayor Soller, the offenses charged in the subject criminal
cases fall within the exclusive original function of the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan. There
is a categorical indication that the petitioners spouses Soller had a personal motive to commit the offenses
and they would have committed the offenses charged even if they did not respectively hold the position
of Municipal Mayor or Municipal Health Officer