Scribd
Upload
56 views3 pages

Escobal Vs Garchitorena

This case discusses the jurisdiction over a criminal case involving a Philippine National Police (PNP) member accused of homicide. The Sandiganbayan ruled it had jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court held that based on the facts of the case and amendments to relevant laws, jurisdiction lies with the Regional Trial Court instead. Specifically, (1) the information did not sufficiently allege the crime was related to the defendant's duties, and (2) as a PNP Senior Inspector below salary grade 27, jurisdiction is with the RTC under amendments to the law. The amendments apply retroactively as a substantive procedural law.

Uploaded by

Mark Gabriel Maranga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views3 pages

Escobal Vs Garchitorena

This case discusses the jurisdiction over a criminal case involving a Philippine National Police (PNP) member accused of homicide. The Sandiganbayan ruled it had jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court held that based on the facts of the case and amendments to relevant laws, jurisdiction lies with the Regional Trial Court instead. Specifically, (1) the information did not sufficiently allege the crime was related to the defendant's duties, and (2) as a PNP Senior Inspector below salary grade 27, jurisdiction is with the RTC under amendments to the law. The amendments apply retroactively as a substantive procedural law.

Uploaded by

Mark Gabriel Maranga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Escobal vs Garchitorena (Remedial Law)

ARNEL ESCOBAL
vs.
HON. FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan, xxx, Hon.
David C. Naval, RTC Judge

(Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan vis-à-vis of the RTC)

G.R. No. 124644; February 5, 2004; CALLEJO, SR., J.

FACTS:

Petitioner Escobal is a graduate of the PMA, a member of the AFP and the Philippine
Constabulary, as well as the Intelligence Group of the Philippine National Police. On
March 16, 1990, the petitioner was conducting surveillance operations on drug trafficking
at a café bar and restaurant in Naga City when he somehow got involved with a shooting
incident that resulted to the death of Rodney Nueca.

Escobal was preventively suspended from the service. When arraigned, he pleaded not
guilty. Thereafter, he filed a Motion to Quash the Information alleging that the court
martial, not the RTC, had jurisdiction over criminal cases involving PNP members and
officers. RTC denied the motion.

Trial proceeded. The prosecution rested its case and petitioner presented his evidence. On
July 20, 1994, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the case. Citing Republic of the
Philippines v. Asuncion, et al., he argued that since he committed the crime in the
performance of his duties, the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
The RTC dismissed the motion but ordered the conduct of a preliminary hearing to
determine whether or not the crime charged was committed by the petitioner in relation to
his office as a member of the PNP.

On July 31, 1995, the trial court issued an Order declaring that the petitioner committed
the crime charged while not in the performance of his official function. The trial court
added that nonetheless, upon the enactment of R.A. No. 7975, the issue had become moot
and academic since the amendatory law transferred the jurisdiction over the offense
charged from the Sandiganbayan to the RTC. The petitioner did not have a salary grade
of "27" as provided for in or by Section 4(a)(1), (3) thereof.

The trial court nevertheless ordered the prosecution to amend the Information pursuant to
the ruling in Republic v. Asuncion and R.A. No. 7975, and to include therein an
allegation that the offense charged was not committed by the petitioner in the
performance of his duties/functions, nor in relation to his office.

The petitioner filed a MR of the said order, reiterating that based on his testimony and
those of his witnesses, the offense charged was committed by him in relation to his
official functions. He asserted that R.A. No. 7975, which was enacted on March 30,
1995, could not be applied retroactively.

The RTC ordered the public prosecutor to file a Re-Amended Information and to allege
that the offense charged was committed by the petitioner in the performance of his
duties/functions or in relation to his office; and, conformably to R.A. No. 7975, to
thereafter transmit the same to the Sandiganbayan.

The Sandiganbayan returned the records of the case to the RTC, contending that the latter
has jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE:

Whether the case falls in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or of the RTC

HELD:

The case is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.


Under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by P.D. No. 1861, the Sandiganbayan
had exclusive jurisdiction in all cases involving the following:

(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of
the Revised Penal Code;

(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to
their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations,
whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is
higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00
….

For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the said law 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 the discharge of
official duties must be alleged in the Information. 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. The amended Information filed with the RTC
against the petitioner does not contain any allegation showing the intimate relation
between his office and the discharge of his duties. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction over
the offense charged when on November 24, 1995, it ordered the re-amendment of the
Information to include therein an allegation that the petitioner committed the crime in
relation to office. The trial court erred when it ordered the elevation of the records to the
Sandiganbayan. It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 amending P.D. No. 1606 was
already in effect.

Under Sec. 2 of said law, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to
his office but occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade below "27," the proper
Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the petitioner was a Police Senior Inspector, with
salary grade "23." He was charged with homicide 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.

The petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7975 should not be applied retroactively has no
legal basis. It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law, which
may be applied retroactively.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy