ABERO, JOHANNES CHRISTIAN REI B. ATTY.

VICTOR CAYCO
2018-0293 CRIMPRO Tuesday 5:30PM-8:30PM

ESCOBAL VS. GARCHITORENA

GR NO. 124644, February 5, 2004

Facts:
The petitioner, a member of the Philippine National Police, was conducting
surveillance operations on drug trafficking at a beer house. He somehow got involved in
a shooting incident, resulting in the death of one Rodney Rafael N. Nueca. An amended
Information was filed with the RTC charging the petitioner with murder. 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 trial court nevertheless ordered the prosecution to amend the
Information. The amendment consisted in the inclusion therein of an allegation that the
offense charged was not committed by the petitioner in the performance of his
duties/functions, nor in relation to his office. The petitioner filed a motion for the
reconsideration of the said order, he asserted that R.A. No. 7975, which was enacted on
March 30, 1995, could not be applied retroactively.

Issue:
Whether the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the case of the Petitioner.

Held:
Yes, 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. 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.
ABERO, JOHANNES CHRISTIAN REI B. ATTY. VICTOR CAYCO
2018-0293 CRIMPRO Tuesday 5:30PM-8:30PM

PEOPLE V. HENRY T. GO
GR NO. 168539, March 25,2014

Facts:
An Information filed against respondent is an offshoot of this Court’s which
nullified the various contracts awarded by the Government. Among those charged was
herein respondent, who was then the Chairman and President of PIATCO, for having
supposedly conspired with then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile (Secretary Enrile) in
entering into a contract which is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to
indict, among others, herein respondent for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. While
there was likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary Enrile, he was no longer
indicted because he died prior to the issuance of the resolution finding probable cause.
The Sandiganbayan issued an Order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused considering that the accused is a
private person and the public official Arturo Enrile, his alleged co-conspirator, is already
deceased, and not an accused in this case. The Sandiganbayan grants the Motion to Quash
and the Information filed in this case is hereby ordered quashed and dismissed. Hence
this case.

Issue:
Whether the death of a Public Officer in a crime extinguishes the Liability of his
co-conspirators.

Held:
No, it is true that by reason of death, there is no longer any public officer with
whom respondent can be charged for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not mean, however,
that the allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or that their
alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of
public officer is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it
remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent.
The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be
indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer
may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer has
already died, the private person may be indicted alone.