republic of the philippines...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~a1toiBanhatIanQuezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Petitioner,

JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO(In his capacity as Presiding Judgeof Branch 14, Regional Trial Court,11th Judicial Region, Davao City) andALiMAR ETRONE,

VILLARUZ, JR., J.DE LA CRUZ, J. &GERALDEZ, JJ

. f~u!?1Y\ ~ ..2610 7ttx--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--x

\sub-markings for being hearsay, and (b) granted the accused's demurrer to \

evidence, thereby acquitting private respondent. , ~'

\

The antecedent procedural facts: t' / -J r/ \i

RESOLUTIONPP vs. Judge George E. OmeliaSB-OB-SCA-0004

~/

RESOLUTIONPP vs. Judge George E. OmeliaSB-08-SCA-0004 .

A.THAT THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO

JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.

B.THAT PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE FILED A MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE MARCH 4, 2008 ORDEROF THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT. PETITIONERHAS SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY UNDER THE RULE.

'In \


THAT THE ORDER OF MARCH 4, 2008 OF THEHONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS FOUNDED ONFACT, LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE. .

D.THAT THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE IN

ISSUING THE QUESTIONED ORDER DID NOT ACT WITHGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OREXCESS OF JURISDICTION. THAT THE HONORABLEPRESIDING JUDGE MUST NOT BE FAULTED FOR THEPETITIONER'S FAILURE TO PRESENT THE ENCODER ASREQUIRED BY THE RULE AND JURISPRUDENCE.

"Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exerciseexclusive 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 ofthe Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused areofficials occupying the following positions in the government, whetherin a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of thecommission of the offense: xxx

"b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with oth~crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in ~~

subsection a of th is section in reiation to their office. "1:1\.·. r/ \l' J '\


"c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connectionwith Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

'The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellatejurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders ofregional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own originaljurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

"The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdictionover petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition,certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs andprocesses. in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions ofsimilar nature,. including quo warranto, arising or that may arise incases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14and 14-A issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over thesepetitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

\,\

exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, o~ 1\\

r l i

RESOLUTIONPP VS. Judge George E. OmeliaSB-OB-SCA-0004

orders of the regional trial courts whether i~ the exercise of their own original

jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided." It is because

meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent.1 It need

regional trial courts may also be elevated to the Court of Appeals.2 Likewise, it

Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in r

"I ~u

I Republic v. Orbecido III, 472 SeRA 114, at pp. 121 - 1222 Sec. 2 (a), Rule 41, Rules of Court

RESOLUTIONPP vs. Judge George E. OmeliaSB-OS-SCA-0004

aid of the court's appellate jurisdiction.3 The question then is, when is a final

"SEC. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a specialcourt, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdictionover criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices andsuch other offenses committed by public officers and employeesincluding those in government-owned or controlled corporations, inrelation to their office as may be determined by law." (Emphasissupplied)

"SEC. 4. The present anti-graft court known as theSandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdictionas now or hereafter may be provided by law."

sense, the offense can not exist without the office. As an exception to \

Montilla, it was held in People v. Montejo,6 that although public office is not an ~i/(j


In Montilla v. Hilario,5 the Supreme Court laid down the principle that

4 Please see, Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 30 I SeRA 298, at p. 318590 Phil. 496108 Phil613 . r

\ \\\function and by taking advantage of his official position". However, a cursory ~i1


element of an offense charged, as long as the offense charged in the

information is intimately connected with the office and is alleged to have been

in the complaint or information, and not hythe result of evidence after triaL?

"That on 26 February 2004 or sometime prior or subsequentthereto, in Davao City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, accused low-ranking public officer ALiMARFLORIDA ETRONE, Immigration Officer "' of the Bureau ofImmigration, while in the performance of his official function andtaking advantage of his official position, did then and there willfully,unlawfully and feloniously state and make it appear in his PersonalData Sheet (CS Form 212) that he graduated from the University ofMindanao, Davao City with a degree in Bachelor of Science in CivilEngineering when in truth and in fact said accused well knew that thisacademic deficiencies did not entitle him to graduate from saiduniversity.

Based on the information, private respondent was charged with-

RESOLUTIONPP vs. Judge George E. OmelioSB-OB-SCA-0004

alleged to have committed in relation to his office.8 The phrase "in the

and passed the Career Service Professional Qualifying Examination and that

he was a 4th year AS student at the Far Eastern University when in truth and

year AS student at the said university, the Honorable Supreme Court held:\

"In the instant case, there is no showing that the alleged \falsification was committed by the accused if at all, as a consequence ~Il \)

8 Lacson v. Executive Secretary, supra ." 142 SCRA 459, vI i


of, and while they were discharging, official functions. The informationdoes not allege that there was an intimate connection between thedischarge of official duties and the commission of the offense.Besides, falsification of an official document may be committed notonly by pUblic offi~ers and employees but even by private personsonly. To paraphrase Mantilla, public office is not an essentialingredient of the offense such that the .offense cannot exist without theoffice.

"Clearly, therefore, as the alleged falsification was not anoffense committed in relation to the office of the accu~ed, it did notcome under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It follows that allits acts in the instant case are null and void ab initio."l0

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan should not be confused by the

ruling in Barriga v. Sandiganbayan,11 where· the Honorable Supreme Court

connected with the public office and are perpetrated by the public officer or

~JIG10 At pages 465-466

II 457 SeRA 301

RESOLUTIONPP vs. Judge George E. OmeliaSB-08-SCA-0004

employee while in the performance of his official functions, though improper

or irregular conduct" .12

constituent element of both felonies,14 it follows, therefore, that they are

office or that the offense is intimately connected to the discharge of the official .

12 At page 31213 Ibid.14 Please see ·page 313. );t/r

charged and the accused's official functions. The requirement on specific ~/~J


Information merely alleges that the accused committed the crime charged in

relation to his office because such allegation is merely a conclusion of law.15

acquire jurisdiction. The same principle was applied in the recent case of

Pacta/in v. Sandiganbayan.16

15tp.31216 G.R. No. 161455, May 20, 2008


9'EFREN N. E ~ CRUZ

Assoc' te Jus ice

)/;1~ .FRANCI 0 H.VILL~luz,JR.

Chair an/Associate Justice

republic of the philippines...

Documents