Bayani Subido Jr. and Rene Parina, petitioners vs.

Sandiganbayan, respondent
G.R. No. 122641, 20 January 1997, 266 SCRA 379.
Doctrine The reckoning point for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over the accused and
the offense charged is the time of the commission of the crime. The information filed in Criminal
Case 22825 alleged that petitioners Subido and Parina committed acts constituting Arbitrary
Detention while they were performing their official functions. Moreover, the penalty for
Arbitrary Detention due to Maksimuks detention of forty-three (43) days is prision mayor (6
years 1 day 12 years) and under E.O. 184, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over such
offenses.
A procedural and curative statute may validly be given retroactive effect, there being no
impairment of contractual or vested rights.
Type of Appeal/Action
discretion amounting to
sought to set aside the
Motion to Quash and
Reconsideration.

Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on ground of grave abuse of

lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners Bayani Subido Jr. and Rene Parina
Sandiganbayans Resolution (dated 25 October 1995) denying their
its Order (dated 10 November 1995) denying their Motion for

Facts Petitioners Subido and Parina were charged with Arbitrary Detention (penalized under
Revised Penal Code) in an information filed on 28 July 1995. The case was docketed as Criminal
Case 22825. The information alleged that then Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation
Bayani Subido Jr. and then BID Special Agent Rene Parina willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
caused the issuance and implementation of an arrest warrant dated 25 June 1992 against James J.
Maksimuk, in conspiracy with each other and while performing their official functions. The said
warrant caused Maksimuks detention for forty-three (43) days.
The petitioners then filed on 28 August 1995 a Motion to Quash, where they alleged that the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over their person and the offense charged and they should be
tried in RTC of Manila, as Arbitary Detention (penalized under the Revised Penal Code) is not
covered under R.A. No. 7975. Also, they argued that R.A. 7975 should be given prospective
application because when the case was filed, Subido was already a private person since he
separated from government service on 28 February 1995 while Parina did not hold a position
corresponding to Salary Grade 27.
The prosecution filed their opposition to the Motion to Quash on 28 September 1995, contending
that under Sec. 4(b) of R.A. 7975, the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the petitioners and
the offense charged and that the basis of Sandiganbayans jurisdiction is the position of the
accused in the government service when the offense charged was committed and not the nature
of the offense charged, provided the offense committed by the accused was in the exercise of his
duties and in relation to his office.
The petitioners Motion to Quash was denied by the Sandiganbayan (in its Resolution dated 25
October 1995). The Sandiganbayan ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case, as stated in Sec. 4
(a)e of R.A. 7975.

/archibald.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law and Jurisprudence

Bayani Subido Jr. and Rene Parina, petitioners vs. Sandiganbayan, respondent
G.R. No. 122641, 20 January 1997, 266 SCRA 379.
As the arraignment was 10 November 1995, the petitioners filed on 9 November 1995 Motion
for Reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan that motion through its Order dated 10 November
1995.
Hence, this petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Issues W/N the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the petitioners and the offense of
Arbitrary Detention charged against them?
Legal Provisions
Section 2 of Rep. Act. 7975 states that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in
all cases involving:
a. 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, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government, whether in permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the
time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod,
city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul
and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank;
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations;
/archibald.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law and Jurisprudence

Bayani Subido Jr. and Rene Parina, petitioners vs. Sandiganbayan, respondent
G.R. No. 122641, 20 January 1997, 266 SCRA 379.
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade "27" and up
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to
the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned
in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos.
1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary
grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying
the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be
vested in the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Further, section 7 of the same law states upon the effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases in
which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper courts.
Held The petition of Subido and Parina was DISMISSED by the Supreme Court.
Ruling The Court ruled that as per Sections 2 and 7 of Rep. Act 7975, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the offense, as the information in Criminal Case 22825 stated that the
petitioners willfully, unlawfully and feloniously caused the issuance and implementation of an
arrest warrant dated 25 June 1992 against James J. Maksimuk, in conspiracy with each other and
while performing their official functions. Moreover, the penalty for the Arbitrary Detention due
to Maksimuks detention of forty-three (43) days is prision mayor (6 years 1 day 12 years), and
under E.O. 184, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over such offense. It also stated that the
petitioners overlooked that the reckoning point for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over
them and the offense charged is the time of the commission of the crime. Moreover, Subido
never denied in the lower court that at time when he committed the offense, he was classified
under Salary Grade 27 for the position of Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation.
Contrary to the petitioners argument, the Court also ruled that the Sandiganbayan Law (PD
1606, as amended by RA 7975) is not a penal law which defines crimes and provide punishment
for such acts, but a procedural law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure of enforcing
rights or obtaining redress for their invasion. Thus, as a procedural and curative statute, R.A. No.
/archibald.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law and Jurisprudence

Bayani Subido Jr. and Rene Parina, petitioners vs. Sandiganbayan, respondent
G.R. No. 122641, 20 January 1997, 266 SCRA 379.
7975 may validly be given retroactive effect, there being no impairment of contractual or vested
rights

/archibald.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law and Jurisprudence