SANCHEZ v.

DEMETRIOU (1993)

Petitioner: Antonio L. Sanchez

Respondent: Harriet Demetriou (Presiding Judge of the RTC Pasig)

FACTS:
o In 1993, the Pres. Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of an appropriate
charges against several persons, including Sanchez, in connection with the rape-slay
of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez.
o Acting on this request, the Panel of State Prosecutors of the DoJ conducted a prelim.
Investigation. Sanchez was not present but was represented by his counsel, Atty.
Brion.
o PNP Commander Piad issued an “invitation to the petitioner requesting him to appear
for investigation at Camp Vicente in Laguna. It was served on Sanchez and he was
immediately taken to said camp.
o Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio Centeno and SPO3 Vivencio Malabanan,
who both executed extrajudicial confessions implicating him as a principal in the rape-
slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. Sanchez was placed on “arrest status” and
taken to the DoJ in Manila.
o Respondent prosecutors immediately conducted an inquest upon the arrival of
Sanchez. After the hearing, a warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez which was
issued by Judge Lanzanas of the RTC Manila, in connection with criminal cases for
violation of Sec. 8 in relation to Sec. 11 of RA 6713. Sanchez was taken to the DIS
Detention Center in Camp Crame, where he remains confined.
o Respondent prosecutors filed with the RTC Laguna 7 informations charging Sanchez,
Corcolon, Corcolon, Kawit, Brion, Medialdea, and Ama with the rape and killing of
Sarmenta.
o Judge Sto. Domingo of the RTC CLaguma issued a warrant of arrest for all the accused,
including Sanchez in connection with the said crime.
o The Sec. of Justice express his apprehension that the trial might result in the
miscarriage of justice because of the tense and partisan atmosphere in Laguna in favor
of Sanchez and the relationship of an employee in the trial court with one of the
accused. The SC ordered the transfer of the venue of the 7 cases to Pasig, where they
were raffled to Judge Harriet Demetriou.
o The 7 informations were amended to include the killing of Allan Gomez as an
aggravating circumstance. On the same day, Sanchez filed a motion to quash the
information on the grounds now raised in this petition.
o After oral arguments, Judge Demetriou denied the motion. Sanchez filed with the SC
the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a TRO/writ of
injunction.
o Sanchez argues that the 7 informations filed against him should be quashed because:
1. He was dnied the right to present evidence at the preliminary investigation; 2. Only
the Ombudsman had the competence to conduct the investigation; 3. His warrantless
arrest is illegal and the court therefore has not acquired jurisdiction over him; 4. As a
public officer, he can be tried for the offense only by the Saniganbayan.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N Sanchez was accorded the right to present counter-affidavits.
o YES. During the preliminary investigation, Sanchez’s counsel, Atty. Brion, manifested
that Sanchez was waiving the presentation of a counter-affidavit.
o Nonetheless, the head of the Panel of Prosecutors told Brion that he could still file a
counter-affidavit. No such counter-affidavit was filed.
o Sanchez was present at the hearing. During the entire proceedings, he remained quiet
and let his counsel speak and argue on his behalf.
o At any rate, it is settled that the absence of a prelim investigation does not impair the
validity of the information or otherwise render the same defective and neither does it
affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing
of the information.
o If no prelim investigation has been held, or if it is flawed, the trial court may, on the
motion of the accused, order an investigation or reinvestigation and hold the
proceedings in the criminal cases in abeyance.
o In this case, Judge Demetriou saw no reason or need for such step. Finding no
arbitrariness in her factual conclusions, we shall defer to her judgment.

2. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman

o Sanchez argues that the proceedings conducted by the DOJ are null and void because
it had no jurisdiction over the case. He claims that it is the Ombudsman that is vested
with the power to conduct the investigation of all cases involving public officers like
him, as municipal mayor of Laguna.
o The Ombudsman is needed empowered under Sec. 15, RA 6770 to investigate and
prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public official. However, it has been held
that this authority “is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent
authority in respect of the offense charged.”
o In fact, other investigatory agencies of the gov’t such as the DOJ, in connection with
the charge of sedition, and the PCGG, in ill-gotten wealth cases, may conduct the
investigation.

3. W/N Sanchez was arrested on Aug. 13, 1993

o “Arrest” – the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer
for the commission of the offense. An arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the
person to be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest.
o Application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal
declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an intent on the part
of one of the parties to arrest the other and an intent on the part of the other to
submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary.
o Sanchez was taken to Camp Vicente Lim in Laguna by virtue of a letter-invitation by
the PNP commander requesting him to appear at the said camp for investigation.
o In the case at bar, the invitation came from a high-ranking military official and the
investigation of Sanchez was to be made at a military camp.
o Although in the guise of a request, it was obviously a command or an order of arrest
that the petitioner could hardly be expected to defy.
 4. W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over this case.
o Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, the SC finds that the trial
court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of Sanchez.
o The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his person,
he may move to quash the information, but only on that ground.
o If, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is
deemed to have waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the
jurisdiction of the court.
o After Sanchez was unlawfully arrested, Judge Lanzanas issued a warrant of arrest
against Sanchez in connection with the criminal cases for violation of RA 6713. Pending
the issuance of the warrant of arrest for the rape-slay cases, this first warrant served
as the initial justification for his detention.

5. Jurisdicition of the Sandiganbayan

o Sanchez argues 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.
o Sec. 4 of PD 1606.
o The crime of rape with homicide with which Sanchez is charged obviously does not fall
under Par. 1 which deals with graft and corruption cases. Neither is it covered by Par.
2 because it is not an offense committed in relation to the office of the petitioner.
o There is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape with homicide
and the petitioner’s office as mayor because public office is not an essential element
of the crime charged.
o The offense can stand independently of the office.
o Moreover, it is not even alleged in the Info that the commission of the crime charged
was intimately connected with the performance of the petitioner’s official functions.
o The informations of the case do not indicate that the crime of rape with homicide
imputed to Sanchez was connected with the discharge of his functions as mayor or
that there is an “intimate connection” between the offense and his office.
o Thus, the crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not the
Sandiganbayan.

JUDGMENT: Petition is DISMISSED. Judge Demetriou is DIRECTED to continue with the trial of
the criminal cases and to decide them with deliberate dispatch.