Nature: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order to restrain the 1st Division Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with Crim. Case No. 24339 and from enforcing the warrants of arrest or to maintain the status quo until further orders from this Court.
Facts:
·
Municipal Mayor Antiporda and others were
charged with the crime of kidnapping
one Elmer Ramos. It was filed with the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. The
Information reads as follows:
“That
on September 1, 1995, in Sanchez Mira, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused Eliterio Rubiaco, Caesar Talla, Vicente
Gascon and Licerio Antiporda, Jr…did then and there… kidnap Elmer Ramos from
his residence in Marzan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan against his will with the use of
a Maroon Tamaraw FX motor vehicle…“
·
Sandiganbaya ordered the prosecution to submit an
amendment to the Information:
[Sandiganbayan] expressed anxiety as to the Court's jurisdiction over the case
considering that it was not clear
whether or not the subject matter of the accusation was office related.
For this purpose, Prosecutor Agcaoili
is given 30 days to submit the amendment
embodying whatever changes necessary in order for the Information to
effectively describe the offense herein charged...
·
The
prosecution filed an Amended
Information:
“That on September 10, 1997, at Sanchez
Mira, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Licerio Antiporda, Jr., being the Municipal Mayor of Buguey, Cagayan in the exercise of his official duties as such and taking advantage
of his position, ordered, confederated and conspired with Juan Gallardo, Barangay Captain of San Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan (now deceased) and accused Eliterio Rubiaco, barangay councilman of San Lorenzo, Buguey,
Cagayan, Vicente Gascon and Caesar Talla… kidnap and abduct the victim Elmer Ramos… and detain him illegally at the residence
of Antiporda for more than five (5) days.”
·
Accused then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that a reinvestigation of the case be conducted and the issuance of
warrants of arrest be deferred.
·
Ombudsman
Aniano A. Desierto denied the Omnibus Motion.
·
The accused filed a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance and/or Recall Warrant of
Arrest Issued which was also denied "on the ground that there was nothing in the Amended Information that
was added… so that the accused could
not claim a right to be heard separately in an investigation in the Amended Information.
·
Also, the Court ruled that "since none of the accused have submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court, the accused are not in a
position to be heard on this matter at this time"
·
The accused filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
·
Sandiganbayan ignored the Motion to Quash since the accused
have continually refused to submit
themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court.
·
A MR was
filed wherein it was alleged that the filing
of the Motion to Quash and the appearance
of their counsel during the scheduled hearing amounted to their voluntary appearance and invested the court with
jurisdiction over their persons.
·
Sandiganbayan denied the MR.
Issues:
a) Can
the Sandiganbayan, which has no jurisdiction as charged in the original
complaint, acquire jurisdiction through the amendment of Information? NO,
petitioners barred by estoppel.
Sandiganbayan
Jurisdiction
·
Sec. 4, par (a) of P.D. 1606, as amended by P.D.
1861:
(a) Exclusive original
jurisdiction in all cases involving:
(2) Other offenses or
felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office…
·
Criminal
Jurisdiction Requisites:
(1) the offense is one which the court
is by law authorized to take cognizance of
(SUBJECT MATTER)
(2) the offense must have been committed within its territorial
jurisdiction (VENUE OR TERRITORY)
(3) the person charged with the
offense must have been brought in to its
forum for trial (PERSON OF THE ACCUSED)
a) forcibly by warrant of arrest
b) or upon his voluntary submission to the court.
PERSON
OF THE ACCUSED
·
Petitioners:
o Sandiganbayan
had no jurisdiction since the original information did not allege that one of
the petitioners, took advantage of his position as mayor.
o Court
lacking jurisdiction cannot order the amendment of the information.
·
Court:
o They
cannot question the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan because they
insist that said court acquired jurisdiction over their motion to quash.
SUBJECT MATTER
WON the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction
over the offense charged?
·
NO. The original Information did not mention that the offense committed
by the accused is office-related.
·
BUT, the petitioners are estopped for in the MR filed with the Sandiganbayan, it was they who "challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC
over the case and clearly stated in their MR that the said crime is work
connected.
·
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a
court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent, and after obtaining or
failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction.
·
Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was thus vested with the authority to order the
amendment of the Information.
b) Can the amended information be allowed
without conducting anew a preliminary investigation for the graver offense
charged therein?
·
Reinvestigation
is not necessary anymore. It is
proper only if the accused's substantial rights would be impaired. The
amendments merely describe the public positions
and where the victim was brought when he was kidnapped.
·
A preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits
and but determines only whether there is probable
cause to believe that the accused is guilty.
·
The purpose of a preliminary investigation has
been achieved already and we see no cogent nor compelling reason why a
reinvestigation should still be conducted.
0 comments:
Post a Comment