G.R. Nos.

111771-77
November 9, 1993
ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, petitioner,
vs.
The Honorable HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU (in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, NCR, Branch 70,
Pasig), The Honorable FRANKLIN DRILON (in his capacity as
Secretary of Justice), JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, LEONARDO C.
GUIYAB, CARLOS L. DE LEON, RAMONCITO C. MISON,
REYNALDO J. LUGTU, and RODRIGO P. LORENZO, the last six
respondents in their official capacities as members of the State
Prosecutor's Office), respondents.
FACTS:
 The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of
appropriate charges against several persons, including the
petitioner, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen
Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez.
 The Panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice
conducted a preliminary investigation, however the Petitioner
Sanchez was not present but was represented by his counsel,
Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr.
 The PNP Commander issued an "invitation" to the petitioner
requesting him to appear for investigation in Canlubang, Laguna.
 At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively
identified by the witnesses, who both executed confessions
implicating him as a principal in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and
the killing of Gomez.
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
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. . .. (Emphasis supplied)
The crime of rape with homicide with which the petitioner stands
charged obviously does not fall under paragraph (1), which deals with
graft and corruption cases. Neither is it covered by paragraph (2)
because it is not an offense committed in relation to the office of the
petitioner.
The court find no allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide
imputed to the petitioner was connected with the discharge of his
functions as municipal mayor or that there is an "intimate connection"
between the offense and his office. It follows that the said crime, being
an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the
Sandiganbayan.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

 The petitioner was then placed on "arrest status" and taken to the
Department of Justice in Manila.After the hearing, a warrant of
arrest was served on Sanchez.

 The respondent prosecutors filed with the Regional Trial Court of

Calamba, Laguna, seven informations charging the petitioner and
the others with the rape and killing of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and
so the court issued a warrant for the arrest of all the accused,
including the petitioner, in connection with the said crime.

 The respondent Secretary of Justice subsequently expressed his

apprehension that the trial of the said cases might result in a
miscarriage of justice because of the tense and partisan
atmosphere in Laguna in favor of the petitioner and the
relationship of an employee, in the trial court with one of the
accused. This Court thereupon ordered the transfer of the venue
of the seven cases to Pasig, Metro Manila, where they were
raffled to respondent Judge Harriet Demetriou.

 Seven informations were amended to include the killing of Allan

Gomez as an aggravating circumstance.
 The petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations
substantially on the grounds now raised in this petition.

 The petitioner argued earlier that since most of the accused were
incumbent public officials or employees at the time of the alleged
commission of the crimes, the cases against them should come
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and not of the regular
courts.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the
case charged to the accused.

HELD:

Section 4, paragraph (a) of P.D. No, 1606, as amended by P.D.

No.1861, provides:
 G.R. No. 165835 ISSUE:
June 22, 2005 Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitions for
MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, Petitioner, forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HELD:
Respondents. The petition is patently without merit. It should be dismissed.

FACTS:
 Petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia was the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, J6, of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines.
 On 27 September 2004, Atty. Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas,
Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II of the Field
Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman, after
due investigation, filed a complaint against petitioner with
public respondent Office of the Ombudsman, for violation of
Sec. 8, in relation to Sec. 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713,
violation of Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and violation
of Section 52 (A)(1), (3) and (20) of the Civil Service Law.
 Petitioner’s wife Clarita Depakakibo Garcia, and their three
sons, Ian Carl, Juan Paolo and Timothy Mark, all surnamed
Garcia, were impleaded in the complaint for violation of R.A.
No. 1379 insofar as they acted as conspirators, conduits,
dummies and fronts of petitioner in receiving, accumulating,
using and disposing of his ill-gotten wealth.
 The Republic of the Philippines, acting through public
respondent Office of the Ombudsman, filed before the
Sandiganbayan, a Petition with Verified Urgent Ex Parte
Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Attachment against petitioner, his wife, and three sons,
seeking the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under
Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 1379, as amended.
 It was alleged that the Office of the Ombudsman, after
conducting an inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation in
criminal cases, 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.
Sec. 4.a (1) (d) of P.D. 1606, as amended, as the prevailing law on the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, states that:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. —The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
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, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,
where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a 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:
….
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all
officers of higher ranks;
….
As petitioner falls squarely under the category of public positions
covered by the aforestated law, the petition for forfeiture should be
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
In the face of the prevailing jurisprudence and the present state of
statutory law on the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, petitioner’s
argument—that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the
petition for forfeiture it being "civil" in nature and the Sandiganbayan
allegedly having no jurisdiction over civil actions—collapses
completely.

 On 17 November 2004, petitioner (as respondent a quo) filed

a Motion to Dismiss8 in Civil Case No. 0193 on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over forfeiture
proceedings under R.A. No. 1379. On even date, petitioner
filed the present Petition, raising the same issue of lack
jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan.

 Petitioner argues in this Petition that the Sandiganbayan is

without jurisdiction over the "civil action" for forfeiture of
unlawfully acquired properties under R.A. No. 1379,
maintaining that such jurisdiction actually resides in the
Regional Trial Courts as provided under Sec. 29 of the law,
and that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in civil actions
pertains only to separate actions for recovery of unlawfully
acquired property against President Marcos, his family, and
cronies as can be gleaned from Sec. 4 of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1606,10 as amended, and Executive
Orders (E.O.) Nos. 1411 and 14-A.12.

 According to petitioner, nowhere in the amendments to P.D.

No. 1606 and R.A. No. 1379 does it provide that the
Sandiganbayan has been vested jurisdiction over separate
civil actions other than those filed against President Marcos,
his family and cronies.13 Hence, the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over any separate civil action against him, even
if such separate civil action is for recovery of unlawfully
acquired property under R.A. No. 1379.
 G.R. No. 124644
February 5, 2004
ARNEL ESCOBAL, petitioner,
vs
HON. FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, Presiding Justice of the
Sandiganbayan, Atty. Luisabel Alfonso-Cortez, Executive Clerk of
Court IV of the Sandiganbayan, Hon. David C. Naval, Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 21, Luz N.
Nueca, respondents.
FACTS:
 The petitioner was conducting surveillance operations on drug
trafficking at a Bar and Restaurant located along Naga City. He
somehow got involved in a shooting incident, resulting in the
death of one Rodney Rafael N. Nueca.
 On February 6, 1991, an amended Information was filed with the
RTC of Naga City, Branch 21, charging the petitioner and a
certain Natividad Bombita, Jr. alias "Jun Bombita" with murder.
 The petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the
RTC, while accused Bombita remained at large. The petitioner
posted bail and was granted temporary liberty.
 During arraignment, the petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded
not guilty to the offense charged.
 The petitioner 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.
 Trial thereafter proceeded, and the prosecution rested its case.
The petitioner commenced the presentation of his evidence.
 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 issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss. It,
however, 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.
 In the preliminary hearing, the prosecution manifested that it was
no longer presenting any evidence in connection with the
petitioner’s motion. It reasoned that it had already rested its case
and according to the prosecution, they were able to show the
following facts:
a. the petitioner was not wearing his uniform during the
incident;
b. the offense was committed just after midnight;
c. the petitioner was drunk when the crime was committed;
d. the petitioner was in the company of civilians; and,
e. the offense was committed in a beerhouse called "Sa
Harong Café Bar and Restaurant."
 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
upon the enactment of R.A. No. 7975, the issue had become
moot and academic. The amendatory law transferred the
jurisdiction over the offense charged from the Sandiganbayan to
the RTC since the petitioner did not have a salary grade of "27"
as provided for in or by Section 4(a)(1), (3) thereof.
 The petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration and he
asserted that R.A. No. 7975, which was enacted on March 30,
1995, could not be applied retroactively.
 The RTC made a volte face and issued an Order reversing and
setting aside its July 31, 1995 Order. It declared that based on
the petitioner’s evidence, he was on official mission when the
shooting occurred. It concluded that the prosecution failed to
adduce controverting evidence thereto. It likewise considered Luz
Nacario Nueca’s admission in her complaint before the PLEB that
the petitioner was on official mission when the shooting
happened.
 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, as well as the complete records with
the stenographic notes, to the Sandiganbayan.
 On January 8, 1996, the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan
ordered the Executive Clerk of Court IV, Atty. Luisabel Alfonso-
Cortez, to return the records of Criminal Case No. 90-3184 to the
court of origin, RTC of Naga City, Branch 21. It reasoned that
under P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, the RTC
retained jurisdiction over the case, considering that the petitioner
had a salary grade of "23."
 Furthermore, the prosecution had already rested its case and the
petitioner had commenced presenting his evidence in the RTC;
following the rule on continuity of jurisdiction, the latter court
should continue with the case and render judgment therein after
trial.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan committed
a grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in ordering the remand of the case to the RTC.
HELD:
 The respondent Presiding Justice acted in accordance with law
and the rulings of this Court when he ordered the remand of the
case to the RTC, the court of origin.
 The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by
the allegations in the Information or the Complaint and the statute
in effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless
such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof.
 The jurisdictional requirements must be alleged in the
Information. Such jurisdiction of the court acquired at the
inception of the case continues until the case is terminated.
 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:
 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;
 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 ….

However, 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.

Senator Leila De Lima vs Juanita Guerrero
GR No. 229781
October 20, 2017
FACTS:
 The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several
inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous drug syndicated at the
New Bilibid Prison, inviting inmates who executed affidavits in
support of their testimonies.
 Pursuant to DOJ DO, four cases were consolidated and the
prosecutors were directed to conduct the requisite preliminary
investigation.
 The DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary hearing wherein the
petitioner, through her counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to
Immediately endorse the case to the Office of the Ombudsman
and for the Inhibition of the Panel of Prosecutors and the
Secretary of Justice.
 The petitioner argued that the Office of the Ombudsman has the
exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear and four complaints
against her and that the DOJ prosecutors should inhibit
themselves and refer the complaints to the Office of the
Ombudsman.
 Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for prohibition and
certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the DOJ panel over the
complaints against her.
 Meanwhile, in the absence of restraining order issued by the CA,
the DOJ panel proceeded with the conduct of the preliminary
investigation and in its joint resolution recommended the filing of
informations against the petitioner. Three informations were files
against petitioner and several co-accused before the RTC of
Muntinlupa City.
 One of the informations raffled off to the branch where the
presiding judge was the respondent.
 The petitioner was charged for violation of Sec 5 in relation to Sec
(jj), Section 26 (b) and Sec 28 of RA 9165, that the accused being
the secretary of DOJ together with her co-accused took
advantage of their public office to commit illegal drug trading
inside the New Bilibid Prison.
 The petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, questioning the RTC’s
jurisdiction over the offense charged against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC or the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over
the violation of RA No. 9165 averred in the assailed information.
HELD:
 Petitioner argues that, based on the allegations of the Information
in Criminal Case No. 17-165, the Sandiganbayan has the
jurisdiction to try and hear the case against her.
 She posits that the Information charges her not with violation of
RA 9165 but with Direct Bribery-a felony within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given her rank as the former
Secretary of Justice with Salary Grade 31.
 For the petitioner, even assuming that the crime described in the
Information is a violation of RA 9165, the Sandiganbayan still has
the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case considering that the acts
described in the Information were intimately related to her
position as the Secretary of Justice.
 Some justices of this Court would even adopt the petitioner's
view, declaring that the Information charged against the petitioner
is Direct Bribery.
 The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the R TC has
exclusive jurisdiction to try violations of RA 9165, including the
acts described in the Information against the petitioner.
 The Sandiganbayan, so the respondents contend, was
specifically created as an anti-graft court. It was never conferred
with the power to try drug-related cases even those committed by
public officials.
 In fact, respondents point out that the history of the laws enabling
and governing the Sandiganbayan will reveal that its jurisdiction
was streamlined to address specific cases of graft and corruption,
plunder, and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.
 Notably, the designation, the prefatory statements and the
accusatory portions of the Information repeatedly provide that the
petitioner is charged with "Violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Section 5, in relation to Section
3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28, Republic Act No. 9165." From
the very designation of the crime in the Information itself, it should
be plain that the crime with which the petitioner is charged is a
violation of RA 9165.
 Further, a reading of the provisions of RA 9165 under which the
petitioner is prosecuted would convey that De Lima is being
charged as a conspirator in the crime of Illegal Drug Trading.
 While it may be argued that some facts may be taken as
constitutive of some elements of Direct Bribery under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), these facts taken together with the other
allegations in the Information portray a much bigger picture,
Illegal Drug Trading.
 The DOJ' s designation of the charge as one for Illegal Drug
Trading thus holds sway. After all, the prosecution is vested with
a wide range of discretion-including the discretion of whether,
what, and whom to charge.88 The exercise of this discretion
depends on a smorgasboard of factors, which are best
appreciated by the prosecutors.
 As such, with the designation of the offense, the recital of facts in
the Information, there can be no other conclusion than that
petitioner is being charged not with Direct Bribery but with
violation of RA 9165.
 The pertinent special law governing drug-related cases is RA
9165, which updated the rules provided in RA 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. A plain reading of
RA 9165, as of RA 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-
related cases is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court
and no other.
 Notably, no other trial court was mentioned in RA 9165 as having
the authority to take cognizance of drug-related cases.
 Moreover, the exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA
9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the
accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher,
regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in
relation to office.
 The power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-
ranking government officials is not omnipotent. The
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and its limits
are currently defined and prescribed by RA 10660, which
amended Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1606.
 As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
following:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. -The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive 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, Book II of
the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused
are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a 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: XXXX

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as

Grade '27' and higher 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 the 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 whether simple or complexed with

other crimes 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, issued in 1986.

Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive

original jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not
allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b)
alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from
the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount
not exceeding One Million pesos (Pl,000,000.00).