LACSON V. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999
FACTS:
On May 18, 1995, eleven (11) members of
Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies
in Metro Manila were slain by elements of Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence
Task Group. On media expose however, it was alleged that what actually
transpired was a summary execution. The office of the Ombudsman conducted an
investigation and recommended the indictment for multiple murder charged as
principals before the Sandiganbayan. This information was amended after re-investigation and petitioner herein was charged as accessory.
ISSUE:
WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the multiple
murder case.
HELD:
NO. Jurisdiction of the
court is defined by the Constitution or Statute. The elementary rule is that jurisdiction of
a court is determined by allegations in the complaint or information, and not
by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial. For Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over the
case, the offense charged must be committed by the offender in relation to his
office. (Sec.4, par. b of R.A. 8249). The mere allegation in the amended
information that the offense was committed by the accused public officers in
relation to their office is not sufficient. In determining jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan, what is controlling is the specific factual allegation in the
information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the
official duties and the commission of the offense charged.
For failure to show in the amended
information that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the
discharged of official functions of the accused, the petition is GRANTED.
Criminal case was transferred to the RTC.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
V. RAMOS
P.E.T. Case No.
001 February 13, 1996
FACTS:
The presidential election of 1992 was
clouded with much uncertainty as to who is the real winner. However, Congress
sitting as Board of Canvassers proclaimed Fidel V. Ramos as duly elected
President of the Republic. Protestant filed before the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal (PET) for annulment of proclamation on grounds of massive fraud and
electoral sabotage among others. While the election contest is still pending, Miriam
Defensor-Santiago was elected Senator of the Republic in the mid-term election
in 1995.
ISSUE:
WON by assuming the position of a Senator,
did Defensor-Santiago have effectively abandoned her Presidential Election
protest?
HELD:
YES. An election contest involves a public office in which the
public has an interest. In the case at bar, when protestant entered into a political
contract with the electorate as Senator, she impliedly waives her
vested right to the election contest. More so, corollary to her position is the
discharge of her functions. In assuming the office of the Senator then, the
Protestant has effectively abandoned or withdrawn the protest, or at very
least, abandoned her determination to protect or pursue the public interest
involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate. Such abandonment or withdrawal operates to render moot
and academic the instant case.
Moreover, the resolution of this protest
would serve public interest as it would dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to
the results of the 1992 presidential elections. Petition was DISMISSED.
G.R. No.
188308 October 15, 2009
FACTS:
Both Joselito Mendoza and Roberto Pagdanganan
vied for the position of Governor of the province of Bulacan
ISSUE:
WON COMELEC has a concurrent jurisdiction
on a provincial election protest at the SET premises.
HELD:
YES. The physical transfer of the ballots and other election
materials to the SET for purposes of its own revision becomes a non-issue,
given the arrangement between the COMELEC and the SET to coordinate and make
arrangements so as not to delay or interrupt the revisions of ballots. The Court
ruled that the COMELEC’s action was valid exercise of jurisdiction as it is
suitable and reasonable process within the exercise of its jurisdiction over
provincial election contest, aimed at expediting the disposition and
with no prejudicial effects on the parties. What transpired in the SET premises is not
revision or correction but deliberation of the merits of the provincial
election contest. The court sees no grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition was DISMISSED.
DE CASTRO V.
COMELEC
G.R. No.
125249 February 7, 1997
FACTS:
Jimmy De Castro was proclaimed mayor of
Gloria, Oriental Mindoro in 1995 election. His rival, Nicolas Jamilla filed an
election protest before the RTC, however, during the pendency of the case, the
latter died. The RTC dismissed the case as the case was rendered moot and academic for the death of the
protestant extinguishes the case itself.
ISSUE:
WON election contest survives the death of
the protestant or the protestee.
HELD:
YES. An election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to
the parties such that the death of either would oust the court of all authority
to continue the protest proceedings; rather, it is imbued with paramount public
interest. Moreover, broad perspectives of public policy impose upon courts the
imperative duty to ascertain by all means within their command who the real
candidate elected. Finally, the Court ruled that the determination of who among the
candidates has been in fact elected is a matter clothed with public interest, wherefore;
public policy demands an election contest, duly commenced, be not abated by
death of the contestant. The petition was DISMISSED.
BARROSO V.
AMPIG
G.R. No.
138218 March 17, 2000
FACTS:
Claudius Barroso and Emerico Escobillo were
candidates for mayor of the municipality
of Tampakan
ISSUE:
WON election contest be dismissed on
grounds of forum shopping.
HELD:
NO. An
election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed with public
interest. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the
candidate proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers was the lawful choice of the
people. An election protest therefore involves not only the adjudication of
private and pecuniary interest of rival candidate but paramount to their claim
is the deep public concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty
over the real choice of the electorate. Therefore, the Rules on Civil Procedure generally do not
apply to election cases. They apply only by analogy or in suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.
More so, it is neither fair nor just to
keep in office for an uncertain period of time whose right to it is under
suspicion. This
can only be achieved upon resolution of the case by brushing aside
technicalities of procedure. The petition was DISMISSED.
COJUANGCO V.
PCGG
G.R.No.
120640 August 8, 1996
FACTS:
The election of fifteen directors for the
ensuing year was taken up during the annual meeting of the stockholders of San
Miguel Corporation. Petitioners and respondents were among the nominees to the
board but after the canvassed of the vote cast, only those nominated by PCGG under the
sequestered assets (recovered ill gotten wealth) were declared to
have been elected. Petitioner filed before the Sandiganbayan a petition for quo
warranto.
ISSUE:
WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
petitions for quo warranto.
HELD:
YES. The rule that Sandiganbayan cannot exercise jurisdiction
over petitions for quo warranto is not without exception. It is a well settled jurisprudence that the
exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Sandiganbayan would evidently extend
not only to the principal causes of action like recovery of alleged ill-gotten
wealth, but also to all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to,
such cases, such as the dispute over the sale of shares, the propriety of the
issuance of ancillary writs thereto, the sequestration thereof. The
court ruled that any attempt to remove special actions, similarly involving the
powers and functions of the PCGG from the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive
jurisdiction would be of no avail. The petition was GRANTED.
SERAPIO V.
SANDIGANBAYAN
CONSOLIDATED
CASES January 28, 2003
G.R. No.
148468, G.R. No. 148769, G.R. No. 149116
FACTS:
Edward
Serapio was a member of the Board of Trustees and the Legal Counsel of Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation. This foundation was established to help provide
educational opportunities for the poor and underprivileged but deserving Muslim
youth and students. Donations came pouring in from various institutions,
organizations and that of Chavit Singson. However, on the latter part of 2000, Chavit accused then
President Estrada and his cohorts of engaging in the illegal number game
jueteng as protector, beneficiary and recipient. The Ombudsman took
the necessary steps and find probable cause, thus the case of plunder before
the Sandiganbayan.
The
accused, herein petitioner took all legal remedy to bail but consequently due to
numerous petitions and motion to quash, the same was suspended and
counter petitioned. Petitioner also prayed for issuance of habeas corpus.
ISSUE:
WON
petitioner should be arraigned first before hearing his petition for bail;
WON
petitioner may file a motion to quash the amended information during pendency of his petition to bail;
and
WON
petitioner should instead be released through a writ of habeas corpus.
HELD:
A. Although he was already arraigned, no plea
has yet been entered thereby rendering the case moot. Nonetheless, the court
takes cognizance and held that arraignment is not a prerequisite to conduct hearing on
petition for bail.
B. The court finds no inconsistency between an
application of an accused for bail and his filing of motion to quash. Bail, is a
security given to release a person in custody of the law. A motion to quash on
the other hand is a mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal
complaint filed against him for insufficiency of its facts in posits law.
This tow has objectives not necessarily antithetical to each other.
C. In exceptional cases, habeas corpus may be
granted by the court even when the person is detained pursuant to a valid
arrest or his voluntary surrender. However, in the case at bar, there is no
showing of any basis for the issuance of the writ. The general rule is that the writ does not
apply when the person alleged to be restraint of his liberty is in custody of
an officer under process issued by competent court; more so,
petitioner is under detention pursuant to a valid arrest order.
The
petition was partly GRANTED on motion to quash. The petition for habeas corpus
and bail was DISMISSED.
No comments:
Post a Comment