Crim Pro Cases - 1st.doc

7/25/2019 Crim Pro Cases - 1st.doc

1/42

Crim Pro Cases

People vs. Sandiganbayan, Sept. 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 4!

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

-versus-

SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD

DIVISION) and ROLANDO PLAZA,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 169!

P"#$#n%:

CARPIO,J., Chairperson,

V!ASCO, "R.,#

PRA!$A,

%RSAMI&,#and

A%A',JJ.

P"o&'a%#d:

September (), *+(+

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

PERALTA,J.:

or this Courts resolution is a petition /(0dated September *, *++) under Rule 1) of the Rules of

Court that see2s to re3erse and set aside the Resolution /*0of the Sandi4anba5an 6$hird 'i3ision7, dated

"ul5 *+, *++), dismissin4 Criminal Case &o. *89, entitledPeople of the Philippines v. Rolando

Plazafor lac2 of ;urisdiction.

$he facts follo


2/42

Respondent Rolando Pla=a, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsodof $oledo Cit5, Cebu, at

the time rele3ant to this case, uent thereto at

$oledo Cit5, Pro3ince of Cebu, Philippines, and


3/42

as amended, eclusi3el5 to cases


4/42

$he Sandi4anba5an


5/42

A. Violations of Republic Act &o. ?+(9, as amended, other


6/42

A4ain, the earlier case interpreted the abo3e pro3isions, thus:

$he abo3e la< is clear as to the composition of the ori4inal ;urisdiction of the

Sandi4anba5an. Dnder Section 1 6a7, the follouire ;urisdiction o3er the said offenses, the latter

must be committed b5, amon4 others, officials of the eecuti3e branch occup5in4 positions ofre4ional director and hi4her, other


7/42

A simple anal5sis after a plain readin4 of the abo3e pro3ision sho


8/42

because a distinction apparentl5 eists. In %*# o#n$#$ n8o8#d n S#-%on ! (a), % $ no%d$2'%#d %*a% 2'0- o-# $ #$$#n%a a$ an ##n% o %*# $ad o#n$#$ %*#&$#8#$, 5*#

n %*o$# o#n$#$ and #on#$ n8o8#d n S#-%on ! (0), % $ #no'* %*a% %*# $ad o#n$#$

and #on#$ 5#"# -o&&%%#d n "#a%on %o %*# 2'0- o-a$ o" #&2o/##$: o-#.Inepoundin4 the meanin4 of offenses deemed to have been ommitted in relation to offie , this

Court held:

In Sanhez v. $emetriou/**8 SCRA F*8 6(99?70, the Court elaboratedon the scope and reach of the term offense committed in relation to /an

accuseds0 office b5 referrin4 to the principle laid do


9/42

;E CONC

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate "ustice

Chairperson

PRESBITERO ?. VELASCO, ?R. L


10/42

#'esi4nated additional members in lieu of Associate "ustices Antonio duardo %. &achura and "ose Catral Mendo=a,


11/42


12/42

Resolution, on April F, *++(, prepared a memorandum findin4 probable cause to indict respondent

Amante.

On Ma5 *(, *++1, the OSP filed an Information /?0uent thereto at

$oledo Cit5, Pro3ince of Cebu, Philippines, and


13/42

lan4ua4e of the la< is too plain and unambi4uous that it did not ma2e an5 distinction as to the salar5

4rade of cit5 local officialsHheads.

$he Sandi4anba5an, in its Resolution/F0dated ebruar5 *, *++), dismissed the case a4ainst

Amante, the dispositi3e portion of uestion, petitioner disputes

the formers appreciation of this Courts decision inInding v. Sandiganbayan./80Accordin4 to

petitioner,Indingdid not cate4oricall5 nor implicitl5 constrict or confine the application of the

enumeration pro3ided for under Section 16a76(7 of P.'. &o. (F+F, as amended, eclusi3el5 to cases


14/42

1. $herefore, accordin4 to respondent Amante, the Sandi4anba5an


15/42

Specificall5, the >uestion that needs to be resol3ed is


16/42

Compensation and Position Classification Act of (99 6Republic Act &o. F8)7,

specificall5 includin4:

6a7 Pro3incial 4o3ernors, 3ice-4o3ernors, members of

the san44unian4 panlala


17/42

and hi4her, other


18/42

in3ol3e a 3iolation of R.A. &o. ?+(9, R.A. &o. (?89 or Chapter II, Section *, $itle VII of the

Re3ised Penal Code. $herefore, in the instant case, e3en if the position of the accused is one of

those enumerated public officials under Section 16a76(76a7 to 647, since she is bein4 prosecuted of

an offense not mentioned in the aforesaid section, the 4eneral >ualification that accused must be apublic official occup5in4 a position uirement before this Court could

eercise ;urisdiction o3er her. And since the accused occupied a public office


19/42

$he phrase other offenses or felonies is too broad as to include the crime of murder,

pro3ided it


20/42

offense cannot eist


21/42

=INITA V. CHICO@NAZARIO PRESBITERO ?. VELASCO, ?R.

Associate "ustice Associate "ustice

Actin4 Chairperson

ANTONIO ED


22/42

#'esi4nated as an additional member in lieu of Associate "ustice Consuelo nares-Santia4o per Special Order &o. F89 dated Au4ust ?, *++9.##

Per Special Order &o. F8 dated Au4ust ?, *++9./(0'ated April *+, *++), rollo, pp. ?+-)./*0Penned b5 Associate "ustice Bodofredo !. !e4aspi 6no< retired7,


23/42

THIRD DIVISION

HANNAH E


24/42

One of the pro;ects of the OSRI uash the information. She claimed that the Sandi4anba5an does not ha3e an5

;urisdiction o3er the offense char4ed or o3er her person, in her capacit5 as DP student re4ent.

Petitioner claimed that Republic Act 6R.A.7 &o. ?+(9, as amended b5 R.A. &o. *19, enumerates the

crimes or offenses o3er


25/42

She also ar4ued that it


26/42

Sec. 1. "urisdiction $he Sandi4anba5an shall eercise eclusi3e ori4inal ;urisdiction in all casesin3ol3in4:

6A7

6(7 Officials of the eecuti3e branch occup5in4 the positions of re4ional director and hi4her, otheruoted pro3ision that the Sandi4anba5an has ori4inal eclusi3e ;urisdiction o3erall offenses in3ol3in4 the officials enumerated in subsection 647, irrespetive of their salary grades,because

the primordial consideration in the inclusion of these officials is the nature of their responsibilities and

functions.

Is accused-mo3ant included in the contemplated pro3ision of la


27/42

LDAS@I&B $@ I&ORMA$IO& A&' 'ISMISI&B $@ CAS &O$EI$@S$A&'I&B $@A$ IS @AS &O

"DRIS'IC$IO& OVR $@ O&S C@ARB' I& $@ I&ORMA$IO&. /(90

In her discussion, she reiterates her four-fold ar4ument belo


28/42

In"nri1uez v. %aadaeg 61 Phil. F817, upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on improper

3enue, this Court 4ranted the petition for prohibition and en;oined the respondent ;ud4e from ta2in4co4ni=ance of the case ecept to dismiss the same.

In%analo v. %ariano6F9 SCRA +7, upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on bar b5 prior

;ud4ment, this Court 4ranted the petition for ertiorariand directed the respondent ;ud4e to dismiss the case.In 2uviengo v. $auyuy6(+) SCRA FF7, upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the

Statute of rauds, this Court 4ranted the petition for ertiorariand dismissed the amended complaint.

In Taas v. Cariaso68* SCRA )*87, this Court 4ranted the petition for ertiorariafter the motion to

>uash based on double ;eopard5 uash based on prescription


29/42

P.'. &o. (1F


30/42

In cases


31/42

shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional emplo5ment all4i3in4 rise to intimac5


32/42

re>uirements that 6a7 the offense is committed b5 public officials and emplo5ees mentioned in Section 16A7 of P.'.

&o. (F+F, as amended, and that 6b7 the offense is committed in relation to their office.

InPerlas, Jr. v. People,/?80the Court had occasion to eplain that the Sandi4anba5an has ;urisdiction o3er an

indictment for estafa3ersus a director of the &ational Par2s 'e3elopment Committee, a 4o3ernment

instrumentalit5. $he Court held then:

$he &ational Par2s 'e3elopment Committee


33/42

A public office is the ri4ht, authorit5, and dut5 created and conferred b5 la


34/42

$he administration of the DP is a so3erei4n function in line


35/42

Ee cannot a4ree. $he information alle4es that the funds came from the Office of the President and not its then

occupant, President "oseph ;ercito strada. Dnder the information, it is a3erred that petitioner re>uested the

amount of ifteen Million Pesos 6P(),+++,+++.++7, Philippine Currenc5, from the Office of the President, and the

latter rel5in4 and belie3in4 on said false pretenses and misrepresentation 4a3e and deli3ered to said accused !and

%an2 Chec2 &o. 9(?)? dated October *1, *+++ in the amount of ifteen Million Pesos 6P(),+++,+++.++7.

A4ain, the Court sustains the Sandi4anba5an obser3ation that the source of the P(),+++,+++ is a matter of defense

that should be 3entilated durin4 the trial on the merits of the instant case./)10

# la)yer o)es candor, fairness

and honesty to the *ourt.

As a partin4 note, petitioners counsel, Renato B. dela Cru=, misrepresented his reference to Section 1 of

P.'. &o. (F+F as a >uotation from Section 1 of R.A. &o. ?+(9. A re3ie< of his motion to >uash, the instant petition

for ertiorari and his memorandum, un3eils the mis>uotation. Ee ur4e petitioners counsel to obser3e Canon (+ of

the Code of Professional Responsibilit5, specificall5 Rule (+.+* of the Rules statin4 that a lauote

or misrepresent.

$he Court stressed the importance of this rule inPangan v. Ramos,/))0


36/42

CONS


37/42

/80Id. at ?F-1+./0Id. at 8-(+./90Id. at 1?./(+0Id. at 11./((0Id. at 1), citin4 B.R. &os. (11*F(-F*, Ma5 9, *++(, ?)8 SCRA F88./(*0Id. at 18./(?0Id. at )+./(10Id. at )1./()0Id. at )./(F0Id. at F(-F1./(80Id. at F)./(0Id. at 81./(90Id. at F./*+0$e los Reyes v. People,B.R. &o. (?*98, "anuar5 *8, *++F, 1+ SCRA *91G!ee v. People,B.R. &o. (?89(1, 'ecember 1, *++*, ?9? SCRA ?9G 2ap v.

Intermediate Appellate Court, B.R. &o. F1F1, March **, (99?, **+ SCRA *1), *)?, citin4 Aharon v. Purisima , B.R. &o. *?8?(, "une *8, (9F), (? SCRA

?+9G4ulaong v. Court of Appeals, B.R. &o. 8))), "anuar5 ?+, (99+, (( SCRA F(./*(0%arelo v. $e 0uzman,B.R. &o. !-*9+88, "une *9, (9*, ((1 SCRA F)8./**00o v. Court of Appeals,B.R. &o. (*9)1, October , (99, *98 SCRA )8)./*?0B.R. &o. !-F?))9, Ma5 ?+, (9F, (1* SCRA (8(./*10Id. at (88-(89./*)0Rollo,pp. 1*-1?./*F0Id. at -(+./*80Id. at (*./*0Id. at F*./*90Presidential 'ecree &o. (1F./?+0Section 1.Jurisdition. $he Sandi4anba5an shall ha3e ;urisdiction o3er:

6a7 Violations of Republic Act &o. ?+(9, as amended, other


38/42

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""###

(ed%span vs. People, )eb. 11, 2010

MARILYN GEDUSPAN and DRA. EVANGELYN FARAHMAND,petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a regional director/manager of government-owned or controlledcorporations organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code for purposes of RA !"#$ the Anti-%raft andCorrupt &ractices Act' &etitioner (arilyn C) %eduspan assumes a negative view in the instant petition for certiorariunder Rule *+ of the Rules of Court) ,he ffice of the Special &rosecutor contends otherwise$ a view shared by therespondent court)

.n the instant Rule *+ petition for certiorari with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or issuance of atemporary restraining order$ %eduspan sees to annul and set aside the resolutions 0"1dated 2anuary "$ 3!! and(ay #$ 3!! of the respondent Sandiganbayan$ 4ifth Division) ,hese resolutions denied her motion to 5uash andmotion for reconsideration$ respectively)

n 2uly ""$ 3!!3$ an information doceted as Criminal Case 6o) 37+3+ for violation of Section 8e9 of RA !"#$as amended$ was filed against petitioner (arilyn C) %eduspan and Dr) :vangeline C) 4arahmand$ &hilippine ;ealth.nsurance Corporation 8&hilhealth9 Regional (anager/Director and Chairman of the


39/42

grade 3*) &hilhealth is a government owned and controlled corporation created under RA 7?7+$ otherwise nown asthe 6ational ;ealth .nsurance Act of "##+)

%eduspan argues that her position as Regional Director/(anager is not within the jurisdiction of theSandiganbayan) She cites paragraph 8"9 and 8+9$ Section @ of RA ?3@# which defines the jurisdiction of theSandiganbayan=

Section 1. "urisdiction. $he Sandi4anba5an shall eercise ori4inal ;urisdiction in all cases in3ol3in4:

a. Violations of Republic Act &o. ?+(9, as amended, other


40/42

6(7 Officials of the eecuti3e branch occup5in4 the positions of re4ional director and hi4her, other


41/42

Cases*

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""###

+aldespenas vs. People, 16 SCRA &1

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""###

Rep%bli vs S%nga, 162 SCRA 1!1

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""###

Ara%la vs. -spino, 2 SCRA 56&

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""###

eltran vs. Ramos, !6 P/il 14!

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""###

)%%%me vs People, ov. 11, 2005

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""###

)o, 'r. $ )aardo vs People, t !, 200!

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""###


42/42

(aria vs. Sandiganbayan, t. 12, 200!

aasaet vs. People, 452 SCRA 255

People vs. Sandiganbayan, 5!& SCRA 4!

People vs Rivera, 5!& SCRA 4!

oniaio et al vs R7C o aati, et al, ay 5, 2010

agno vs People, April 6, 2011

People vs Ca8aling, 2!3 SCRA 26&

%aya vs Polo, 16! SCRA

9e (%man vs Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 1&1

Documents

Crim Pro Cases - 1st.doc