Subido v.

Sandiganbayan

CASE TITLE Subido vs.

Sandiganbayan
GR NO. G.R. No. 122641 DATE OF DECISION January 20, 1997
PONENTE DAVIDE, JR., J
LEGAL
Concept of
BASIS
Jurisdiction
A procedural and curative statute may validly be given retroactive effect, there being no
DOCTRINE/S impairment of contractual or vested rights.

FACTS:

Petitioners and Parina were charged with Arbitrary Detenion (Penalized uder Revised Penal Code) in an
information filed on 28 July 1995. The case was docketed as Criminal Case 22825. The information
alleged that then Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation Bayani Subido Jr. and then BID special
Agent Rene Parina willfully, unlawfully and feloniously caused the issuance and implementation of an
arrest warrant dated 25 June 1992 against James J. Masimuk, in conspiracy with each and while
performing their official functions. The cause of Masimuk's detention for forty-three (43) days. The
petitioner's then filed on 28 August 1995 a motion to Quash, where they alleged that the Sandiganbayan
had no jurisdiction over their person and the offense charged and they should be tried in RTC of Manila,
as Arbitrary Detention (penalized under the Revised Penal Code) is not covered under R.A No. 7975
should be given prospective application because when the case was filed, Subido was already a private
person since he separated from government service on 28 february 1995 while parina did not hold a
position corresponding to Salary Grade 27. The prosecution filed their opposition to the Motion to Quash
on 28 September 1995, contending that under Sec 4. (B of R.A 7975, the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction
over the petitioners and the offense charged and that the basis of Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over the
petitioners and the offense charged and the basis of Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the "position of the
accused in the government service when the offense charged was committed and not the nature of the
offense charged, provided the offense committed by the accused was in the exercise of his duties and n
relation to his office.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the petitioners and the offense of Arbitrary
Detention charged against them?

RULING:

Yes. The Court ruled that as per Section 2 and 7 of Rep Act. 7975, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over the offense, as the information in Criminal Case 22825 stated that the petitioners "willfully unlawfully
and feloniously caused the issuance and implementation of an arrest warrant dated 25 June 1992 against
James J. Maksimuk, in conspiracy with each other and while performing their official functions. Under
E.O. 184, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over such offense. The petitioner overlooked the reckoning
point for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over them and the offense charged is the time of the
commission of the crime. Moreover, Subido never denied in the lower court at the time he committed the
offense, he was classified under the Salary Grade 27 for the position of Commissioner of Immigration ad
Deporation. Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the Court ruled that the sandanbayan LAW (PD 1606,
as amended by RA 7975) is not a penal law which defines crimes and provide punishment for such acts,
but a procedural law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining
redress for their invasion. Thus, as a procedural and curative statute, R.A No. 7975 may validly be given
retroactive effect, there being no impairment of contractual vested rights.