7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

TodayisSaturday,July25,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC

G.R.No.L108208March11,1994
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HON.MAXIMIANOC.ASUNCION,asPresidingJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch104ofQuezon
City,andALEXANDERDIONISIOYMANIO,respondents.HON.CONRADOM.VASQUEZ,Ombudsman,
intervenorrespondent.
TheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.
DeGuzman,Florentino,Celis,Moncupa&Torioforprivaterespondent.

DAVIDE,JR.,J.:
Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6975 1 provides that "criminal cases involving PNP members shall be within the
exclusivejurisdictionoftheregularcourts."Theprincipalissueinthiscaseiswhethertheterm"regularcourts"includesthe
Sandiganbayan. Petitioner maintains that it does not while the respondent Judge and the intervenorrespondent hold
otherwise.

Section46readsasfollows:
Sec. 46. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
criminalcasesinvolvingPNPmembersshallbewithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheregularcourts:
Provided,ThatthecourtsmartialappointedpursuanttoPresidentialDecreeNo.1850shallcontinue
totryPCINPmemberswhohavealreadybeenarraigned,toincludeappropriateactionsthereonby
thereviewingauthoritiespursuanttoCommonwealthActNo.408,otherwiseknownastheArticlesof
War,asamended,andExecutiveOrderNo.178,otherwiseknownastheManualforCourtsMartial:
Provided, further, That criminal cases against PCINP members who may have not yet been
arraigned upon the effectivity of this Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincial
prosecutorormunicipaltrialcourtjudge.
Thefactualandproceduralantecedentsinthiscaseareasfollows:
On 31 July 1991, private respondent Alexander Dionisio y Manio, a member of the Philippine National Police
(PNP)assignedtotheCentralPoliceDistrictCommandStation2inNovaliches,QuezonCity,wasdispatchedby
his Commanding Officer to Dumalay Street in Novaliches to respond to a complaint that a person was creating
troublethere.Dionisioproceededtothatplace,wherehesubsequentlyshottodeathT/Sgt.RomeoSadang.
On7August1991,pursuanttoSection7,Rule112oftheRulesofCourt,theOfficeoftheCityProsecutorfiled
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City an Information 2 charging Dionisio with the crime of homicide
committedasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe31stdayofJuly,1991,inQuezonCity,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionof
thisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,withintenttokill,andwithoutanyjustifiablemotive,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence
upon the person of one T/SGT. ROMEO SADANG Y MACABEO, by then and there shooting the
latterwiththeuseofagun,.45caliberpistol,therebyinflictinguponthelattergunshotwoundsonhis
neckandonhisthorax,whichwerethedirectandimmediatecauseofhisdeath,tothedamageand
prejudice of the heirs of said T/SGT. ROMEO SADANG Y MACABEO in such amount as may be
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

1/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

awardedtothemundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCode.
Contrarytolaw.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q9123224 and was raffled off to Branch 104 of the RTC,
prescribedoverbytherespondentJudge.
On4September1992,whiletrialwasalreadyinprogress,therespondentJudgeissued,motuproprio,anorder3
requiringtheprosecutionandthedefensetocommentonwhethertheCourtshouldstillproceedwiththetrialofthecase:

[i]n view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deloso vs. Domingo (Vol. 191 SCRA,
545),quotedasfollows:
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials when
penalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision correccional (Sec. 4,
subpar.(c),P.D.1606).Themurderchargeagainstthepetitionercarriesthepenaltyof
reclusion temporal in its maximum period of death (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code),
hence, it is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and the Ombudsman has primary
jurisdictiontoinvestigateit.
InhisOrderof24September1992,4 the respondent Judge dismissed Criminal Case No. Q9123224 "for refiling with
theSandiganbayan"onthegroundthattheSandiganbayan,andnottheRegionalTrialCourt,hasjurisdictionoverthecase.
Thebodyoftheorderreads:

Which Court has jurisdiction over police officers who are charged with the crime of homicide or
murder?
Accused Quezon City Patrolman Alexander Dionisio y Manio is being tried for homicide for killing
T/Sgt.RomeoSadangyMacabeoonJuly31,1991inQuezonCity.Severalwitnesseswerealready
presented by the prosecution. Nobody raised the issue of jurisdiction. On September 4, 1992, the
CourtissuedanorderrequiringtheprosecutionandthedefensetocommentonwhethertheCourt
hasjurisdictionoverthematterinviewoftherulingoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofDelosovs.
Domingo,191SCRA945[sic]whichrulesasfollows:
TheSandiganbayanhasjurisdictionoveroffensescommittedbypublicofficialswhenthe
penalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision correccional (Sec. 4,
subpar.(c),P.D.1606).Themurderchargeagainstthepetitionercarries
thepenaltyofreclusiontemporalinmaximumperiodtodeath
(Art.248,RevisedPenalCode),hence,itiscognizablebytheSandiganbayan,andthe
Ombudsmanhasprimaryjurisdictiontoinvestigateit.
As a matter of fact, even if the act or crime is not related to or connected with or arising from the
performanceofofficialduty,itmustbeinvestigatedbytheOmbudsmanoranyofitsdulydeputized
representative:
The clause "any (illegal) act or omission of any public official" is broad enough to
embraceanycrimecommittedbyapublicofficial.Thelawdoesnotqualifythenatureof
the illegal act or omission of the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may
investigate. It does not require that the act or omission be related to or be connected
with or arise from, the performance of official duty. Since the law does not distinguish,
neithershouldwe.
TheSandiganbayan,althoughtryingonlycertainspecialclassesofcrimes,stillcanbeclassifiedasa
regular court functioning within the framework of the judicial department of the government. It is a
"trialcourtandboundbytherulesgoverningtrialcourts.Itisoneofthe'inferiorcourts'inArticleXof
the Constitution whose jurisdiction may be questioned before the Supreme Court and whose
judgments are subject to its review, revision, affirmance or setting aside. The independence of the
judiciaryenshrinedintheConstitutioncallsfortheunitaryjudicialsystemwiththeSupremeCourtat
the top of the hierarchical setup" (Rules of Criminal Procedures by Dr. Fortunato Gupit, Jr., 1986
Edition,p.26).
Conformablythereforetotheforegoingconsideration,theregularcourtreferredtoinSection46of
Republic Act 6975 (An Act establishing the Philippine National Police) is the Sandiganbayan. Since
thepenaltyforhomicide,thechargeagainsttheaccused,carriesthepenaltyofreclusion temporal,
said case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman has the primary jurisdiction to
investigateit.(Art.249,RPC).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

2/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

WHEREFORE,theaboveentitledcaseisherebydismissedforrefilingwiththeSandiganbayan.
On6October1992,theprivateprosecutormovedforareconsideration5 of the dismissal, citing the opinion of the
SecretaryofJusticeof31July19916that"crimescommittedbyPNPmembersarenotcognizablebytheSandiganbayan"
because"[t]heyfallwithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheregularcourts"asprovidedinSection46ofR.A.No.6975and"
[t]heSandiganbayanisnotaregularcourtbutaspecialcourt."

TherespondentJudgedeniedthemotionintheOrderof7October
1992:7
TheopinionoftheSecretaryofJusticedatedJuly31,1992[sic]...isnotbindingtothisCourt.
ThisCourtstillholdsthattheregularCourtsreferredtoinSec.46ofRA6975(AnActestablishing
thePhilippineNationalPolice)includestheSandiganbayanwhichhasexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionto
try offenses on felonies committed by public officers in relation to their office, whether simple or
complex with other crimes where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional
(Sec.4,par.c,PD1606)
Whatiscontemplatedinthelawistheregularcivilcourttotheexclusionofnonregularcourtssuch
asmilitarycourtswhichhadpreviousjurisdictionoverpoliceofficers.Thepoliceforcebeingcivilianin
character should be under the jurisdiction of the civil court. What is meant by "regular courts"
mentionedinSec.46,RA6975arethe"inferiorcourts"inArticleXoftheconstitutionwhichcallsfora
unitary judicial system with the Supreme Court at the top of the hierarchical setup (Rules in Crim.
ProcedurebyDr.FortunatoGupit,page26,1986edition).
On6January1993,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetition.Werequiredtherespondentstocommentthereon.
On 5 February 1993, the office of the Ombudsman filed a motion for leave to intervene and to file comment 8
alleging that its constitutional duty to investigate criminal cases against public officers, including PNP members, and to
prosecutecasescognizablebytheSandiganbayanareaffectedbytheissueraisedandthattheofficeoftheOmbudsman
andtheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ)hadissuedajointcircularon14October19919wherein(a)bothagenciesagreedthat,
subjecttothefinaldeterminationbycompetentauthorities,theterm"regularcourts"inSection46ofR.A.No.6975refersto
"civiliancourts"asdistinguishedfrommilitarycourts,and(b)certainguidelineswereadoptedtogoverntheinvestigationand
prosecution of PNP members. Attached to the motion is the Ombudsman's Comment10 on the petition. We granted this
motiontointervene,admittedtheComment,andrequiredpetitionertoreplythereto.11

IntheirseparateComments,12therespondentJudgereiteratesthereasonsstatedintheassailedorders,andtheprivate
respondentconcurswiththepositionandamplifiestheargumentsoftheOmbudsman.

PetitionerfileditsReply13totheCommentsoftherespondentsandtheintervenor.
On 6 July 1993, we resolved to consider the separate comments of the respondents as answers, to give due
coursetothepetition,andtorequirethepartiestofilesimultaneouslytheirrespectivememorandawithintwenty
daysfromnotice,whichtheydid,withthepetitionersubmittingitsmemorandumonlyon29December1993after
obtainingseveralextensionsoftimetodoso.
Inthemain,petitionerinsiststhatthedismissalofthecriminalcasebelow,"forrefilingwiththeSandiganbayan"
was erroneous because Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 vests the exclusive jurisdiction in criminal cases involving
PNP members only in the "regular courts" which excludes the Sandiganbayan since it is, constitutionally and
statutorily,a"specialcourt"andnotaregularcourt.Tobolsterthisclaim,petitionerpointstoSection5,ArticleXIII
ofthe1973ConstitutionwhichdescribedtheSandiganbayanas"aspecialcourt"andSection4,ArticleXIofthe
1987Constitutionwhichprovidesthat"[t]hepresentantigraftcourtknownastheSandiganbayanshallcontinue
tofunctionandexerciseitsjurisdictionasnoworhereaftermaybeprovidedbylaw."
Itfurtherassertsthat(a)ifitweretheintentionofR.A.No.6975togranttotheSandiganbayanjurisdictionover
PNP members, then Section 46 should have explicitly stated or used the term "civil courts" considering that
membersoftheIntegratedNationalPolice(INP)werethenintegratedwithandundertheoperationalcontroland
administrativesetupofthePhilippineConstabulary(PC)and,underP.D.No.1850,weresubjecttocourtmartial
proceedingsforallcrimescognizablebythecivilcourts(b)ifitweretheintentionofR.A.
No.6975toincludetheSandiganbayanintheterm"regularcourts"in
Section46,thenitshouldnothaveprovidedthereinthat"criminalcasesagainstPCINPmemberswhomayhave
not yet been arraigned upon the effectivity of this Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincial
prosecutorormunicipaltrialcourtjudge"instead,itshouldhavedirectedsuchtransferto"theOmbudsmanorthe
Special Prosecutor since the Ombudsman or the Special Prosecutor is mandated by law to entertain cases
cognizable only by the Sandiganbayan" under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6770 and (c) there is an irreconcilable
conflict between Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 and Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 (revising P.D. No. 1486 which
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

3/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

createdtheSandiganbayan),asamended,whichvestsintheSandiganbayanexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionover"
[o]ther offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office . . . where the
penaltyprescribedbylawishigherthanprisioncorreccional...orafineofP6,000.00"thelatterthenshouldbe
deemedimpliedlyrepealedbytheformer,whichisalaterlaw.
PetitionerfinallycontendsthatP.D.No.1606,asamended,isagenerallawofitappliestoallpublicofficers,while
R.A.No.6975isaspeciallawforitsetsoutaspecialruleofjurisdictionforPNPmembers.Thelattershouldthus
prevail.
PetitionerthenpraysthattheassailedordersofrespondentJudgeof
24September1992and7October1992bereversedandsetasideandthattherespondentJudgebedirectedto
reinstateandcontinuethetrialofCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224.
Ontheotherhand,theOmbudsmanmaintainstheviewthatitistheSandiganbayanandnottheRegionalTrial
Court which has jurisdiction over the subject criminal case in view of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 and the Joint
Circularof14October1991.Itassertsthattheterm"regularcourts"in
Section46ofR.A.No.6975includestheSandiganbayanandthatR.A.
No.6975hasnotrepealedSection4ofP.D.No.1606.
Amplifying its view, it opines that: (a) while the Sandiganbayan is a special court, it is a regular court within the
contextofSection46ofR.A.
No.6975becauseitisa"courtnormallyfunctioningwithcontinuitywithinthejurisdictionvestedinit,"andthatthe
term"regularcourts"isusedinSection46ofR.A.No.6975todistinguishthesaidcourtsfromthecourtmartial
foritseekstodivestthelatterofsuchjurisdictionandmandatesitstransfertotheformerpursuanttothepolicyof
the law to establish a police force national in scope and civilian in character and (b) since the creation of the
Sandiganbayan is mandated by the Constitution 14 to take cognizance of crimes committed by public officers in
relationtotheirofficeandP.D.No.1606createditpursuanttosuchmandate,thentherepealofthelatter,assuggestedby
petitioner, would diminish and dilute the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and would operate to amend the
Constitution,whichnostatutecando.Moreover,thereisnoirreconcilableinconsistencybetweenthetwolawstowarrantan
impliedrepeal.

Finally,theOmbudsmanassertsthattheprovisoinSection46ofR.A.No.6975that"criminalcasesagainstPC
INP members who may have not yet been arraigned upon the effectivity of this Act shall be transferred to the
proper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge" only means a referral to the proper city or
provincialprosecutorormunicipaltrialcourtjudgeforappropriatepreliminaryinvestigationandnotthefilingofthe
criminal information with the proper court it being a fact that all city and provincial prosecutors have been
deputizedbytheOmbudsmantoconductpreliminaryinvestigationofcasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan.
Astowhichlawisthespeciallaw,theOmbudsmanmaintainsthatitisP.D.No.1606becauseitdealsspecifically
with the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan while Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 does not specifically mention any
particularcourt.
TheresolutionoftheprincipalissuehingesontheinterpretationofthetermregularcourtsinSection46ofR.A.
No.6975which,inturn,requiresaninquiryintothelegislativeintentandpurposeofthelaw.
There can be no doubt that the provisions of R.A. No. 6975 on the PNP are intended to implement Section 6,
ArticleXVI(GeneralProvisions)ofthe1987Constitutionwhichreads:
Sec.6.TheStateshallestablishandmaintainonepoliceforce,whichshallbenationalinscopeand
civilianincharacter,tobeadministeredandcontrolledbyanationalpolicecommission.Theauthority
oflocalexecutivesoverthepoliceunitsintheirjurisdictionshallbeprovidedbylaw.
ThesponsorsofHouseBillNo.23614, 15whichtogetherwithSenateBillNo.463 16eventuallybecameR.A.No.6975
wereunequivocalonthis.RepresentativeAntonioCerilles,afterreferringtotheaforementionedmandate,declared:

Todayisadatewithhistory,Mr.Speaker,whenthisaugustchamberwilltryitsbesttopursuewhatis
mandated by the Constitution. Today, we shall insist, though legislative fiat, that the State should
establishandmaintainonepoliceforce.Itsciviliancharacteronanationalscopeshallbeparamount.
Today,weshouldinsistthatnoofficeinanyelementorunitofthepoliceforcecanbeoccupiedor
run by military personnel and officer. We should also insist that the only way to professionalize our
policeforceistoseparatethemfromtheArmedForcesofthePhilippines.17
Inthissponsorshipspeech,RepresentativeNereoJoaquinstated:
First and foremost among all these is, as already mentioned earlier, the fact that the bill is
undoubtedlyinharmonyandinconformitynotonlywiththeletterbutmoreimportantlywiththespirit
ofthenewConstitutionparticularlySection6ofArticleXVI,theGeneralProvisions....18
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

4/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

Police forces have traditionally been under civilian authority. However, the dictatorial regime of then President
FerdinandMarcos,consistentwithhisownagendatostrengthenthemachineryofmartiallawrule,exploitedto
hisadvantagetheprovisionofthe1973Constitutionwhichmandatedtheestablishmentandmaintenanceof"an
integrated national police force whose organization, administration, and operation shall be provided by law." 19
First, he issued a series of decrees consolidating and integrating various local police forces and placing them under the
operational control, direction, and supervision of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) 20 then on 8 August 1975, he
promulgatedP.D.No.765which"establishedandconstitutedtheIntegratedNationalPolicewhichshallbecomposedofthe
Philippine Constabulary as the nucleus, and the integrated police forces as established by Presidential Decrees Nos. 421,
482,531,585and641,ascomponents,undertheDepartmentofNationalDefense."Bythisdecree,Mr.Marcossucceeded
in militarizing the police forces by making them mere components of the PC which was then one of the four major
commandsoftheArmedForcesofthePhilippines(AFP).Hedidnotstopthere.For,evenafterthefarcicalliftingofMartial
Lawin1981throughProclamationNo.2045,andpursuanttotheinfamousAmendmentNo.6ofthe1973Constitution,21he
promulgated on 4 October 1982 P.D. 1850 which provided for courtmartial jurisdiction over police officers, policemen,
firemen,andjailguards.Section1thereofreads:

Sec.1.CourtMartialJurisdictionoverIntegratedNationalPoliceandMembersoftheArmedForces.
Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding (a) uniformed members of the
Integrated National Police who commit any crime or offense cognizable by the civil courts shall
henceforthbeexclusivelytriedbycourtsmartialpursuanttoandinaccordancewithCommonwealth
ActNo.408,asamended,otherwiseknownastheArticlesofWar(b)allpersonssubjecttomilitary
law under Article 2 of the aforecited Articles of War who commit any crime or offense shall be
exclusivelytriedbycourtsmartialortheircasedisposedofunderthesaidArticlesofWarProvided,
that,ineitheroftheaforementionedsituations,thecaseshallbedisposedofortriedbytheproper
civilorjudicialauthoritieswhencourtmartialjurisdictionovertheoffensehasprescribedunderArticle
38ofCommonwealthActNumbered408,asamended,orcourtmartialjurisdictionoverthepersonof
theaccusedmilitaryorIntegratedNationalPolicepersonnelcannolongerbeexercisedbyvirtueof
their separation from the active service without jurisdiction having duly attached beforehand unless
otherwiseprovidedbylaw.
As used herein, the term uniformed members of the Integrated National Police shall refer to police
officers,policemen,firemenandjailguards.
Inamannerofspeaking,thisdecreecompletedthemilitarizationoftheINPandconsummatedtheaberrationin
thepoliceorganization.Twoyearslater,oron5September1984,heissuedP.D.No.1952whichamended
P.D. No. 1850 by inserting a proviso to the first paragraph of Section 1 granting himself the authority "in the
interest of justice, [to] order or direct, at any time before arraignment, that a particular case be tried by the
appropriatecivilcourt."
Before P.D. No. 1850, or specifically on 16 January 1981, Mr. Marcos, through P.D. No. 1822, placed under
courtmartialjurisdiction,pursuanttotheArticlesofWar,allofficers,soldiers,andpersonnelintheactiveservice
oftheAFPorofthePC,chargedwithanycrimeoroffenserelatedtotheperformanceoftheirduties.
Needless to state, the overwhelming sentiment of the framers of the 1987 Constitution against the martial law
regime22andthemilitarizationofthepoliceforcespromptedthemtoexplicitlydirecttheestablishmentandmaintenance
of one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character. This civilian character is unqualified and
unconditional and is, therefore, allembracing. The Declaration of Policy (Section 2) of R.A. No. 6975 faithfully carried out
thismandatewhenitdeclaredthereinthat:

The police force shall be organized, trained and equipped primarily for the performance of police
functions.Itsnationalscopeandciviliancharactershallbeparamount.Noelementofthepoliceforce
shallbemilitarynorshallanypositionthereofbeoccupiedbyactivemembersoftheArmedForcesof
thePhilippines.
That civilian character refers to its orientation and structure. Thus, during a bicameral conference committee
meetingonHouseBillNo.23614andSenateBillNo.463,SenatorEdgardoAngararemarked:
SENATORANGARA:
That's what we're trying to interpret nga eh. Civilian in character meaning, were
separating the police both in orientation and structure from the military discipline and
structure,Ithinkthat'sessentiallythemandatewe'retryingtoimplement.
Civiliancharacternecessarilyincludes,accordingtohim:
SENATORANGARA:
Civiliansystemofjusticena.23
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

5/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

ItisthusevidentthatthemandateofSection46ofR.A.No.6975istodivestcourtsmartialofanyjurisdictionover
criminalcasesinvolvingPNPmembersandtoreturnortransferthatjurisdictiontothecivilcourts.Thisreturnor
transfer of jurisdiction to the civil courts was explicitly provided for in the original Section 68 of House Bill No.
23614whichreadsasfollows:
Sec. 68. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding,
criminal cases involving PNP members shall, immediately upon effectivity of this Act, be exclusively
triedbytheCivilCourts:Provided,however,ThatincaseswhereamemberofthePNPisunableto
postbail,hemaybeplaceduponorderbythecourtunderthecustodyofhissupervisoruponpetition
ofthelatter.24
UponmotionofRepresentativeRodolfoAlbano,acceptedbytheCommitteeandapprovedinplenarysession,this
sectionwasamended,toreadasfollows:
ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING, CRIMINAL CASES
INVOLVING PNP MEMBERS SHALL BE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE CIVIL
COURTS.25
Inthecourseoftheinterpellationonhisamendment,Mr.Albanohadtheoccasiontoemphasizethepurposeof
thelawandthetransferofjurisdictiontocivilcourtsofcriminalcasesinvolvingmembersofthePNP:
MR.ALBANO:
Considering that we are creating here a purely civilian police force, he [the PNP
member]should,therefore,alsofallunderourcivilforce,andthereshouldbenoiotaof
militarysyndrome[referringtotheprovisoinSec.68]sotospeak.26
During the deliberation by the Bicameral Conference Committee on National Defense on House Bill No. 23614
and Senate Bill No. 463, more specifically on Section 68 of the former, its Chairman, Senator Ernesto Maceda,
usedtheterm"regularcourts"inlieuofcivilcourts.Thus:
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.MACEDA):
Okay,ReyatsakaiyongHouse,youworkontheflowchart.
Sootherthanthatinthatparticularsection,anobaitong"Jurisdictionincriminalcases?"
Whatisthisallabout?
REP.ZAMORA:
Incasetheyarechargedwithcrimes.
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.MACEDA):
Ah, the previous one is administrative, 'no. Now, if it is charged with a crime, regular
courts.27
The term regular courts was finally carried into the reconciled bill, 28 entitled "An Act Establishing the Philippine
National Police Under a Reorganization Department of the Interior and Local Government, and for Other Purposes," and
incorporated in the Conference Committee Report received by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate on 19 November
1990. Section 46 of the proposed reconciled bill is Section 68 of House Bill No. 23614, with further modifications and
amendments.ThereconciledbillwasapprovedbysuchbothHouseofCongressandbecameR.A.No.6975.

The foregoing considered, we have no doubt that the terms civil courts and regular courts were used
interchangeably or were considered as synonymous by the Bicameral Conference Committee and then by the
Senate and the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the term regular courts in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975
meanscivilcourts.Therecouldhavebeennoothermeaningintendedsincetheprimarypurposeofthelawisto
removefromcourtsmartialthejurisdictionovercriminalcasesinvolvingmembersofthePNPandtovestitinthe
courts within our judicial system, i.e., the civil courts which, as contradistinguished from courtsmartial, are the
regular courts. Courtsmartial are not courts within the Philippine judicial system they pertain to the executive
departmentofthegovernmentandaresimplyinstrumentalitiesoftheexecutivepower.29Otherwisestated,courts
martialarenotregularcourts.

Parenthetically,inQuiloavs.TheGeneralCourtMartial,30thisCourtfoundcorrectandimpliedlyadoptedasitsown
astatementoftheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralinitsCommentthatSection46ofR.A.No.6975mandatesthetransferof
criminalcasesagainstmembersofthePNPtotheciviliancourts.Thus:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

6/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

Moreover,ascorrectlypointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneralinhiscomment
xxxxxxxxx
The civilian character with which the PNP is expressly invested is declared by RA 6975 as
paramount, and, in line therewith, the law mandates the transfer of criminal cases against its
memberstociviliancourts.31
Havingthusruledthattheterm"regularcourts"inSection46ofR.A.
No.6975referstothecivilcourts,wemustnowdetermineiftheSandiganbayanisincludedinthatterm.
Regularcourtsarethosewithinthejudicialdepartmentofthegovernment,namely,theSupremeCourtandsuch
lowercourtsasmaybeestablishedbylaw.32PerSection16,Chapter4,BookIIoftheAdministrativeCodeof1987,33
such lower courts "include the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Shari'a
DistrictCourts,MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourt,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourts,andShari'aCircuitCourts."

TheSandiganbayanwascreatedbyP.D.No.1486 34 pursuant to the mandate of Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973

Constitution.35ThiswasrevisedbyP.D.No.1606. 36ThelatterwasamendedbyP.D.No.1860 37andlastlybyP.D.No.
1861.38UndertheamendmentsintroducedbyP.D.No.1861,theSandiganbayanhasjurisdictionoverthefollowingcases:

Sec.4.Jurisdiction.TheSandiganbayanshallexercise:
(a)Exclusiveoriginaljurisdictioninallcasesinvolving:
(1)ViolationsofRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,otherwiseknownastheAntiGraft
andCorruptPracticesAct,RepublicActNo.1379,andChapterII,Section2,TitleVIIof
theRevisedPenalCode
(2)Otheroffensesorfeloniescommittedbypublicofficersandemployeesinrelationto
their office, including those employed in governmentowned or controlled corporations,
whethersimpleorcomplexedwithothercrimes,wherethepenaltyprescribedbylawis
higherthanprisioncorreccionalorimprisonmentforsix(6)years,orafineofP6,000.00:
PROVIDED,HOWEVER,thatoffensesorfeloniesmentionedinthisparagraphwherethe
penaltyprescribedbylawdoesnotexceedprisioncorreccionalor imprisonment for six
(6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court,
MetropolitanTrialCourt,MunicipalTrialCourtandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourt.
(b)Exclusiveappellatejurisdiction:
(1) On appeal, from the final judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial
Courtsincasesoriginallydecidedbythemintheirrespectiveterritorialjurisdiction.
(2)Bypetitionforreview,fromthefinaljudgments,resolutionorordersoftheRegional
TrialCourtsintheexerciseoftheirappellatejurisdictionovercasesoriginallydecidedby
theMetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts,in
theirrespectivejurisdiction....
Undoubtedlythen,theSandiganbayanisaregularcourtandisthusincludedinthetermregularcourtsinSection
46ofR.A.No.6975.
Petitioner's insistence that it is not because, by the Constitution and by the statutes, the Sandiganbayan is a
specialcourtand,therefore,notaregularcourtisuntenable.Inthefirstplace,acomparisonbetweenthewords
regular and special is inappropriate since the opposite of the latter is not the former and vice versa. Special
means "designed for a particular purpose confined to a particular purpose, object, person, or class," 39 and is,
therefore, the antonym of general. 40 On the other hand, regular means "steady or uniform in course, practice, or
occurrence," as opposed to casual or occasional. 41 In other words, special and general are categories in the distributive
order.42Withreferencethentothecourts,theyprincipallyrelatetojurisdiction.Thus,therearecourtsofgeneraljurisdiction
andcourtsofspecialjurisdiction.Itis,ofcourse,incorrecttosaythatonlycourtsofgeneraljurisdictionareregular courts.
Courtsofspecialjurisdiction,whicharepermanentincharacter,arealsoregularcourts.TheSandiganbayanisacourtwith
special jurisdiction because its creation as a permanent antigraft court is constitutionally mandated and its jurisdiction is
limitedtocertainclassesofoffenses.

ThattheSandiganbayanisamongtheregularcourtsisfurtherstronglyindicatedbySection1ofP.D.No.1606
whichvestsuponit"alltheinherentpowersofacourtofjustice"andplacesiton"thesamelevelastheCourtof
Appeals," and by Section 4 thereof, as amended by P.D. No. 1861, which grants it appellate jurisdiction over
certain cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

7/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

MunicipalCircuitTrialCourts.
Thereis,aswell,nomeritinthetheoryofpetitionerthatSection46ofR.A.No.6975impliedlyrepealedSection4
ofP.D.No.1606,asamendedbyP.D.No.1861,asregardsthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanovermembers
ofthePNP.First,theargumentisbasedonthefaultyassumptionthattheSandiganbayan,beingaspecialcourt,
isnotaregularcourtwithinthecontemplationofSection46.Second,bothprovisionsarenotirreconcilableand
thepresumptionagainstanimpliedrepealhasnotbeenovercome.Impliedrepealmaybeindulgedinonlyifthe
two laws are inconsistent, or the former law must be repugnant as to be irreconcilable with the latter law.
Necessarilythen,anattemptmustbemadetoharmonizethetwolaws.InValeravs.
Tuason,43thisCourtstated:
Oneofthewellestablishedrulesofstatutoryconstructionenjoinsthatendeavorshouldbemadeto
harmonizetheprovisionsofalaworoftwolawssothateachshallbeeffective.Inorderthatonelaw
mayoperatetorepealanotherlaw,thetwolawsmustactuallybeinconsistent.Theformermustbe
sorepugnantastobeirreconciliable[sic]withthelatteract.(U.S.vs.Palacios,33Phil.,208).Merely
becausealaterenactmentmayrelatetothesamesubjectmatterasthatofanearlierstatuteisnot
ofitselfsufficienttocauseanimpliedrepealofthelatter,sincethenewlawmaybecumulativeora
continuationoftheoldone.(StatutoryConstruction,Crawford,p.634).
InGordonvs.Veridiano, 44 this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, emphasized the task of courts to
reconcileandharmonizelaws:

Courtsofjustice,whenconfrontedwithapparentlyconflictingstatutes,shouldendeavortoreconcile
thesameinsteadofdeclaringoutrighttheinvalidityofoneasagainsttheother.Suchalacrityshould
beavoided.Thewisepolicyisforthejudgetoharmonizethemifthisispossible,bearinginmindthat
theyareequallythehandiworkofthesamelegislature,andsogiveeffecttobothwhileatthesame
timealsoaccordingduerespecttoacoordinatedepartmentofthegovernment.
Indeed,ithasbeenappropriatelysaid:
Thepresumptionagainstimpliedrepealsisclassicallyfoundeduponthedoctrinethatthelegislature
ispresumedtoenvisionthewholebodyofthelawwhenitenactsnewlegislation,and,therefore,ifa
repeal of the prior law is intended, expressly to designate the offending provisions rather than to
leave the repeal to arise by necessary implication from the later enactment. Still more basic,
however, is the assumption that existing statutory and common law, as well as ancient law, is
representative of popular will. As traditional and customary rules, the presumption is against their
alteration of repeal. The presumption has been said to have special application to important public
statutesoflongstanding.45
ItcanthusbereasonablypresumedthatintheenactmentofR.A.No.6975,Congresshadthewholebodyofthe
law in mind and, for consistency, coherence, and harmony, took into account the provisions of the Constitution
regarding the Sandiganbayan, the law creating it, and the amendments thereto relative to its jurisdiction. Since
underthelaw,theSandiganbayanisaspecialantigraftcourtwithexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionover(a)violations
of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code and (b) other
offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees (including those in governmentowned or
controlled corporations) in relation to their office where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision
correccional or imprisonment for six years, or a fine of P6,000.00, and since members of the PNP are public
officers or employees, 46 Congress can be logically presumed to have read into Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 the
constitutional and statutory provisions regarding the Sandiganbayan. The alleged inconsistency seen by petitioner is non
existent for, on the contrary, the two provisions can well go together with full and unhampered effect to both and without
doing violence to either, thereby giving spirit to the maxim, interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi or
everystatutemustbesoconstruedandharmonizedwithotherstatutesastoformauniformsystemofjurisprudence.47 As
harmonized, the conclusion is inevitable that members of the PNP, as public officers and employees, are subject to the
jurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanwithrespectto(a)violationsofR.A.No.3019,asamended,RepublicActNo.1379,and
ChapterII,Section2,TitleVIIoftheRevisedPenalCode,and(b)otheroffensesorfeloniescommittedbytheminrelation
totheirofficewherethepenaltyprescribedbylawishigherthanprisioncorreccionalorimprisonmentofsixyears,orafine
ofP6,000.00.Allotheroffensescommittedbythemarecognizablebytheappropriatecourtswithinthejudicialsystemsuch
astheRegionalTrialCourts,MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts.

Thatthepublicofficersoremployeescommittedthecrimeinrelationtotheirofficemust,however,beallegedin
theinformationfortheSandiganbayantohavejurisdictionoveracaseunderSection4(a)(2). 48Thisallegationis
necessarybecauseoftheunbendingrulethatjurisdictionisdeterminedbytheallegationsoftheinformation.49

Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtdismissedCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224onthegroundthatsincethepenalty
prescribed for the crime charged which is homicide is higher than prision correccional, 50 then pursuant to
Delosovs.Domingo,51itistheSandiganbayanwhichhasjurisdictionoverthecase.Inordertoavoidamisapprehensionof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

8/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

the ruling in Deloso, which was based on P.D. No. 1606 alone, it must be stressed that we had unequivocally ruled in
Aguinaldo vs. Domagas 52 that for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses or felonies
committedbypublicofficersoremployees,underSection4(a)(2)ofP.D.No.1606,asamendedbyP.D.
No. 1861, it is not enough that the penalty prescribed therefor is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six
years,orafineofP6,000.00itisalsonecessarythatsuchoffensesorfelonieswerecommittedin relation to their office.
Wethenconcluded:

Evenbeforeconsideringthepenaltyprescribedbylawfortheoffensecharged,itisthusessentialto
determine whether that offense was committed or alleged to have been committed by the public
officersandemployeesinrelationtotheiroffices.
IntherecentcaseofSanchezvs.Demetriou,53wereiteratedourrulingontherequirementthattheoffensesorfelonies
coveredbySection4(a)(2)ofP.D.No.1606,asamendedbyP.D.No.1861,havetobecommittedbypublicofficersand
employeesinrelationtotheirofficeandlikewiseelucidatedonthemeaningofoffensescommittedinrelationtotheiroffice
byreiteratingtheprincipleinMontillavs.Hilario 54thatanoffensemaybeconsideredascommittedinrelationtotheoffice
if"theoffensecannotexistwithouttheoffice,"orthat"theofficemustbeaconstituentelementofthecrimesas...defined
and punished in Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven, of the Revised Penal Code," and the principle in People vs. Montejo 55
that the offense must be intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetuated while he was in the
performance, though improper or irregular, of his official functions. Further, we intimated that the fact that the offense was
committedinrelationtotheofficemustbeallegedintheinformation.

Justrecently,inNatividadvs.Felix,56weexplicitlydeclaredthatwehadreexaminedtheDelosocase in Aguinaldo and

in Sanchez and reiterated the requisites for an offense under Section 4(a) (2) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No.
1861,tofallunderthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayan.

In the light then of the foregoing, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City would be without jurisdiction over
Criminal Case No. Q9123224 if the information therein would show that the offense of homicide charged was
committedbytheaccused(privaterespondent)inrelationtohisoffice.Theinformationhasfailedtodoso.The
pleadings of the parties are of little help. We can only speculate therefrom that the crime charged might have
been committed while the private respondent was in the pursuit of his mission. Under the subheading in the
petitionentitled"RelevantAntecedents,"thepetitionermerelystates:
1.OnJuly31,1991,privaterespondent...thenamemberofthePNPNCRassignedtotheCentral
Police District Command Station 2, based in Novaliches, Quezon City, was dispatched by his
Commanding Officer to Dumalay Street in Novaliches to check on a complaint regarding a person
creatingtroubleintheplace.WhileinNovaliches,privaterespondentshotRomeoSadangtodeath.
Thereisnoindicationatallthatthetroublemakerwasthevictimandthathewasshotbytheprivaterespondent
inthecourseofthelatter'smission.Ontheotherhand,theprivaterespondentassertsinhisCommentthathe
"shotRomeoSadangintheperformanceofalawfuldutyandinlawfuldefenseofhislife."57Petitionerignoredthis
claiminitsReplytotheComment.ThisclaimisananticipatorydefenseyettobeprovedanditsassertionintheComment
doesnotcurethedeficiency,pointedoutearlier,oftheinformation.Itwouldappeartousthatwithrespecttotheissueof
jurisdiction, the parties only took into account the prescribed penalty, relying upon Deloso vs. Domingo, for which reason
they did not consider important and relevant the issue of whether the offense charged was committed by the private
respondentinrelationtohisoffice.Butasstatedearlier,Delosovs.DomingowasmodifiedbyAguinaldovs.Domagas.

ThedismissalthenofCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224solelyonthebasisofDelosovs.Domingowaserroneous.
InthelightofAguinaldoandSanchez,andconsideringtheabsenceofanyallegationintheinformationthatthe
offense was committed by private respondent in relation to his office, it would even appear that the RTC has
exclusivejurisdictionoverthecase.However,itmayyetbetruethatthecrimeofhomicidechargedthereinwas
committed by the private respondent in relation to his office, which fact, however, was not alleged in the
informationprobablybecauseDelosovs.Domingo did not require such an allegation. In view of this eventuality
andthespecialcircumstancesofthiscase,andtoavoidfurtherdelay,ifnotconfusion,weshalldirectthecourta
quotoconductapreliminaryhearinginthiscasetodeterminewhetherthecrimechargedinCriminalCaseNo.Q
9123224wascommittedbytheprivaterespondentinrelationtohisoffice.Ifitbedeterminedintheaffirmative,
thenitshallorderthetransferofthecasetotheSandiganbayanwhichshallforthwithdocketandproceedwiththe
caseasifthesamewereoriginallyfiledwithit.Otherwise,thecourtaquoshallsetasidethechallengedorders,
proceedwiththetrialofthecase,andrenderjudgmentthereon.
Henceforth,anyofficerauthorizedtoconductapreliminary
investigation58whoisinvestigatinganoffenseorfelonycommittedbyapublicofficeroremployee(includingamemberof
thePNP)wherethepenaltyprescribedbylawishigherthanprisioncorreccionalorimprisonmentforsixyears,orafineof
P6,000.00,mustdetermineifthecrimewascommittedbytherespondentinrelationtohisoffice.Ifitwas,theinvestigating
officer shall forthwith inform the Office of the Ombudsman which may either (a) take over the investigation of the case
pursuant to Section 15(1) of R.A. No. 6770, 59 or (b) deputize a prosecutor to act as special investigator or prosecutor to
assist in the investigation and prosecution of the case pursuant to Section 31 thereof. 60 If the investigating officer
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

9/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

determines that the crime was not committed by the respondent in relation to his office, he shall then file the information
withthepropercourt.

Inthelightoftheforegoing,furtherdiscussionontheothercollateralissuesraisedhasbecomeunnecessary.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING the respondent Judge to conduct, within fifteen (15)
daysfromreceiptofacopyofthisDecision,apreliminaryhearinginCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224todetermine
whetherthecrimechargedwascommittedbytheprivaterespondentinrelationtohisoffice,and
(1) If he determines that the crime charged was committed by the private respondent in relation to
his office, DIRECTING the respondent Judge to forthwith transmit the records of the case to the
Sandiganbayanwhichshalldocketandproceedwiththecaseasifthesamewereoriginallyfiledwith
itor
(2)Ifhedeterminesotherwise,DIRECTINGhimtosetasidethechallengedOrdersof24September
1992 and 7 October 1992, to proceed with the hearing of Criminal Case No. Q9123224, and to
renderjudgmentthereon.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
Soordered.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug
andKapunan,JJ.,concur.

#Footnotes
1Entitled"AnActEstablishingthePhilippineNationalPoliceUnderaReorganizedDepartmentofthe
InteriorandLocalGovernment,andforOtherPurposes,"otherwiseknownastheDepartmentofthe
InteriorandLocalGovernmentActof1990.
2Annex"A"ofPetitionRollo,1718.
3Annex"B"ofPetitionRollo,19.
4Annex"C"ofPetitionRollo,2021.
5Annex"D"ofPetitionRollo,2223.
6QuotedinMemorandumCircularNo.10oftheDOJ,dated19August1991.
7Annex"E"ofPetitionRollo,2728.
8Rollo,3033.
9Annex"E"oftheMotionForLeavetoInterveneAndToFileCommentId.,4445.
10Rollo4664.
11Id.,68.
12Id.,697096112.
13Id.,126132.
14Section5,ArticleXIII,1973ConstitutionSection4ArticleXI,1987Constitution.
15Entitled"AnActEstablishingthePhilippineNationalPoliceUndertheAdministrationandControlof
theNationalPoliceCommission."ThisbillwasrecommendedbytheCommitteeonPublicOrderand
SecurityoftheHouseofRepresentativesinCommitteeReportNo.535,whichsubstitutedforseveral
HouseBillsincludingthecertifiedbillentitled"AnActEstablishingthePhilippineNationalPolice,
CreatingtheNationalPoliceCommission,andforOtherPurposes(JournalandRecordoftheHouse
ofRepresentatives,vol.7,
401412).
16Entitled"AnActCreatingaDepartmentoftheInterior,AbolishingforthePurposetheDepartment
ofLocalGovernment,thePhilippineConstabularyandtheNationalPoliceCommissionandforOther
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

10/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

Purposes."
17JournalandRecordoftheHouseofRepresentative,vol.7,413.
18Id.,414.
19Section12,ArticleXV.
20P.D.Nos.421,482,531,585,and641.
21Itprovided:"WheneverinthejudgmentofthePresident(PrimeMinister),thereexistsagrave
emergencyorathreatorimminencethereof,orwhenevertheinterimBatasangPambansaorthe
regularNationalAssemblyfailsorisunabletoactadequatelyonanymatterforanyreasonthatinhis
judgmentrequiresimmediateaction,hemay,inordertomeettheexigency,issuethenecessary
decrees,orders,orlettersofinstructions,whichshallformpartofthelawoftheland."
22Reflect,forinstance,ontheprovisionsof(a)theBillofRightsdirectingthatonlyaJudgemay
issueasearchwarrantorwarrantofarrestprohibitingsecretdetentionplaces,solitary,
incommunicadoorotherformsofdetentionprohibitingdetentionsolelybyreasonofone'spolitical
beliefsandaspirations:(b)theArticleontheExecutiveDepartmentlimitingtheperiodofsuspension
ofawritofhabeascorpusortheproclamationofmartiallawallowingCongresstorevokesuch
suspensionorproclamation,orextendthesameupontheinitiativeofthePresidentauthorizingthe
SupremeCourt,inanappropriateproceedingfiledbyanycitizen,toreviewthesufficiencyofthe
factualbasisofsuchsuspensionorproclamationandlimitingtheeffectsofastateofmartiallaw
and(c)theArticleonGeneralProvisionsprohibitingtheappointmentordesignationofanymember
ofthearmedforcesintheactiveservicetoanycivilianpositioninthegovernmentincluding
governmentownedorcontrolledcorporationsoranyoftheirsubsidiaries,andlimitingthetourofduty
oftheChiefofStaffofthearmedforces.
23TSN,BicameralConferenceCommitteeonNationalDefense,18October1990,1.
24JournalandRecordoftheHouseofRepresentatives,vol.7,410.
25Id.,311312.
26JournalandRecordoftheHouseofRepresentative,vol.7,312.
27TranscriptoftheCommitteeMeeting(Alavazo)of15May1990at9:16p.m.,46(emphasis
added).
28ReconciliationofHouseBillNo.23614andSenateBillNo.463.
29Olaguervs.MilitaryCommissionNo.34,150SCRA144[1987]Magnovs.DeVilla,199SCRA
663[1991].
30206SCRA821[1992].
31Id.at825826(emphasisadded).
32Section1,ArticleVIII,1987Constitution.
33ExecutiveOrderNo.292.
34Effectiveon11June1978.
35SaidSectionprovides:"TheBatasangPambansashallcreateaspecialcourt,tobeknownas
Sandiganbayan,whichshallhavejurisdictionovercriminalandcivilcasesinvolvinggraftandcorrupt
practicesandsuchotheroffensecommittedbypublicofficersandemployees,includingthosein
governmentownedorcontrolledcorporations,inrelationtotheirofficeasmaybedeterminedby
law."Section4,ArticleXIofthe1987Constitutionprovides:"Thepresentantigraftcourtknownas
theSandiganbayanshallcontinuetofunctionandexerciseitsjurisdictionasnoworhereaftermaybe
providedbylaw."
36Effectiveon10December1978.
37Effectiveon14January1983.
38Effectiveon23March1983.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

11/12

7/25/2015

G.R.No.L108208

39BLACK'SLAWDICTIONARY1397(6thed.,1990).
40Id.at682.
41Id.at1285.
42ROGET'STHESAURUSOFENGLISHWORDSANDPHRASES28(1990ed.).
4380Phil.823,827[1948].
44167SCRA51,5859[1988].
451AC.DALLASSANDS,STATUTESANDSTATUTORYCONSTRUCTION
23.10(4thed.,1972).
46Seedefinitionofpublicofficeroremployee,Section2(14)and(15),IntroductoryProvisions,
AdministrationCodeof1987.
47RUBENE.AGPALO,STATUTORYCONSTRUCTION192(2ded.,1990).
48SeeAguinaldovs.Domagas,supra,atfootnoteno.45.
49Peoplevs.Ocaya,83SCRA218[1978].Seealso,Abadvs.CFIofPangasinan,206SCRA567
[1992]forthesimilarruleincivilcases.
50Thepenaltyforhomicideisreclusiontemporalwhosedurationisfromtwelveyearsandoneday
totwentyyears(Article249,(inrelationto)Article27,RevisedPenalCode.)
51191SCRA545[1990].
52G.R.No.98452,enbancResolution,26September1991.
53G.R.Nos.11177177,9November1993.
5490Phil.49[1951].
55108Phil.613[1960].
56G.R.No.111616,4February1994.
57Rollo,96.Thiswasrestatedinthepetitioner'sMemorandum.
58Section2,Rule112,RulesofCourt.
59TheOmbudsmanActof1989.
60ItmustbeemphasizedthattheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanhasprimary(notexclusive)jurisdiction
overcasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan(Section15[1]).SeeCojuangcovs.PCGG,190SCRA
226[1990]Aguinaldovs.Domagas,supra.Sanchezvs.Demetriou,supra.Natividadvs.Felix,
supra.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html

12/12