SERANA vs.

SB
1. Hannah Serana was appointed by Erap to serve as
student regent of UP.
2. One of the projects was the renovation of Vinzons
hall where she received 15m from the office of the
prez.
3. Since it failed to materialize, the succeeding student
regent filed MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS with
the office of the ombudsman and Serana was
indicted for estafa.
4. She moved to quash the info on ground that
a. SB does not have jurisdiction as she was not a
public officer with salary grade 27
b. She claimed that she had no power to receive
funds, it was not alleged in the info, so crime
not in connection with her official functions
5. SB dismissed the motion
WON SB had jurisdiction over the crime and over the person
of petitioner? YES
1. Estafa is included in PD 1606 which defines the
jurisdiction of the SB
2. PD 1606 vested SB with jurisdiction over
a. Prez
b. Directors or trustees
c. Managers of GOCC
d. State universities or edu institutions
3. Serana falls under this category as she performs
similar functions to those of a board of
trustees
LACSON vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
1. kuratong baleleng gang was slain in QC by anti bank
robbery & intelligence task group (ABRITG)

2. a media expose said that it was a summary

execution and not a shoot-out so the Ombudsman
investigated, initially absolved all PNP officers, BUT
then charged Lacson in 11 information for murder
before SB
3. all the principle accused questioned the jurisdiction
stating that none of them were at least SG 27
4. SB ordered the transfer of the case to RTC of QC but
the prosecutor moved for reconsideration.
5. While pending, a House Bill expanded the jurisdiction
of SB deleting the word principal from principle
accused
6. SB still ordered the transfer to RTC
WON SB has jurisdiction? NO!
1. Lacson tried in RTC because relation to office
2. the intimate relation of the offense charged and
discharge of official duties must be alleged in the
information
3. for failure to show in the amended information that
the charge of murder was intimately connected with
the discharge of official functions, the offense
charged is PLAIN MURDER within the EOJ of the RTC
and not SB
GARCIA vs SB
1. Ombudsman filed 2 forfeiture cases against Garcia,
wife, 2 children
2. They also charged them with plunder
3. The SB issued WoA and Garcias filed a MtD stating
the SB had no jurisdiction over the separate civil
actions for forfeiture.
4. The SB denied it and declared them in default.

5. Despite such, Garcias moved for consolidation of

Forfeiture I with the plunder case pending in a
different division
6. Garcias filed another Mtd on the ff grounds:
a. Filing of plunder ousted the SB 4th div of
jurisdiction over the forfeiture case
b. That the consolidation is imperative in order
to avoid Double jeopardy
WON SB has jurisdiction over petitioner? NO
WON SB has jurisdiction over the forfeiture case despite
filing of the plunder case? YES
1. sub service for both forfeiture cases were made
through Maj. Gen. Garcia at the PNP detention center.
It was INVALID:
a. impossibility of personal service
b. specific details in return
c. effected on person of suitable age and
discretion
2. no valid SS because the 1st 2 requirements were not
complied with
3. civil liability for forfeiture does not arise from the
commission of the crime and it arises out of a CoA
separate from the plunder case
SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU
1. Municipal Mayor sanchez was charged before RTC
Laguna of 7 information of homicide for the rape-slay
of Sarmenta and killing of Gomez.
2. Sanchez moved to quash the info on the ground that
as a public officer, he can be tried only the SB
WON it is the SB who has jurisdiction? NO
1. PD 1606 as amended by PD 1861 provides:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Violation of anti-graft and corrupt practices

Forfeiture of property unlawfully acquired
Bribery
PCGG unexplained wealth
OTHER OFFENSES committed by public
officers in relation to their office including
those employed in GOCC, whether simple or
complexed, where penalty is higher than
prision correccional or imprisonment for 6
years
2. Rape with homicide does not fall under PD 1606
DE VERA vs DE VERA
1. Rosario accused Geren of bigamy.
2. He entered a plea of guilty but prayed that he be
allowed withdraw it to prove MC of voluntary
surrender
3. Rosario opposed, stating that he only raised it as an
afterthought and since the case was ready for
promulgation, the motion should no longer be
entertained.
4. RTC granted. MR denied. Special civ action of certi
with CA affirmed the denial.
WON the lower courts erred in appreciating the MC of VS?
NO!
1. RULE 120, sec 7 a J of conviction may upon motion,
be modified or set aside:
a. Before it becomes final after the lapse of the
period for perfecting an appeal
b. OR when the sentence has been partially or
totally satisfied
c. OR accused has waived in writing his right to
appeal
d. OR has applied for probation

2. In judgments of conviction, ERRORS in the decision

cannot be corrected unless the accused moves for
reconsideration or appeals the decision
3. The trial courts action is an improper object of
certiorari
4. TC correct in appreciating MC of VS!
a. March 1, court issued order finding probable
cause
b. Afternoon of same day, he surrendered and
filed motion for reduction of bail
c. He pleaded guilty
PHOTOKINA vs BENIPAYO
1. benipayo, chair of COMELEC, delivered a speech in
UP diliman which was published in Manila Bulletin
2. Photokina, believing it was the one alluded to, filed
for libel with RTC
3. Case dismissed based on LoJ since the offense was
committed in relation to office hence vesting
jurisdiction with SB.
4. In point blank with ces drilon, he said that
Photokinas funds are being used to campaign
against him. Another libel case was filed but again
dismissed by the RTC.
WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime of libel filed
against Benipayo? YES!
1. Actions for defamation filed with the RTC of the
province or city
a. where the libelous article is printed and first
published
b. OR where any of the offended parties actually
resides at the time of the commission of the
offense
2. Jurisdiction conferred by a special law must prevail
over that granted by a general law

3. It is unnecessary and futile to argue whether the

crime is committed in realtion to office
FOZ vs PEOPLE
1. Danny Fajardo, columnist of Panay news, wrote an
article about Dr. Portigo, company doctor of local
branch of san Miguel office.
2. An information for libel was filed against fajardo and
foz as columnist and editor-publisher.
3. RTC convicted both, affirmed by CA.
4. Petitioners then raise for the 1 st time that the
information charging them with libel did not contain
allegations sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of
Iloilo city.
WON the information was sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the
RTC of Iloilo? NO!
1. venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction.
2. It should have been committed or any of its essential
elements took place within the territorial jurisdiction
of the court. Thus it cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense committed outside
that limited territory.
3. FURTHERMORE, jurisdiction of a court over a criminal
case is determined by the allegations!
4. It was not established that the material was printed
and first published in Iloilo. It only stated that
panay news has considerable circulation in Iloilo and
throughout the region
5. Finally, info states that protigo is a practitioner in
Iloilo city so it is possible that he was actually
residing in another place.
PEOPLE vs SB

1. respondents were filed with graft and corruption,

pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
2. SB declared accused not guilty no doubt that the
project was undertaken and accomplished so
payment was justified
3. So the People filed petition for certiorari on the
ground that the lower court erred in its conclusion
since the evidence shows that the proper bidding
procedure was not followed since the project
proceeded before the required plan was made.
WON acquittal of respondents can still be reviewed by the
court? NO
1. there being no mistrial, acquittal can no longer be
reviewed by the court as this would violate DJ.
2. Alleged error is only one of judgment, petitioner is
NOT ENTITLED to extraordinary writ of certiorari.
RAMISCAL vs SB
1. ramiscal was a retired officer of AFP and served as
prez of Retirement and Separation Benefit system
2. during his term, an acquisition of land in gen san for
housing was approved
3. deeds of sale were executed but only reflected 3k per
sqm instead of 10500.
4. Congresswoman of south cotabato filed a complaint
against petitioner for graft and corruption and
malversation of public funds
5. After PI, ombudsman found probable cause.
6. Petitioner filed a MR on the finding of PC against him,
BUT it was found that he indeed affixed his signature
in the contracts to sell.
7. The SB scheduled arraignment.

8. Petitioner then filed a second MR . Petitioner was

arraigned. Then he filed a motion to set aside his
arraignment pending the resolution of his second MR.
WON SB committed grave abuse when it denied the motion
to set aside? NO!
1. Ombudsman has full discretion to determine WON a
case should be filed with SB, but once filed, SB has
full control over the case.
2. No grave abuse arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or
despotic manner
PEOPLE vs JACK RACHO
1. a confidential agent of police transacted the
purchase of shabu from appellant. The latter said
that he will board the Genesis bus and wear red and
white striped shirt.
2. Went down the bus, would ride trike to final
destination but was invited to the police station. He
denied accusation but a white envelope with shabu
dropped.
3. He was charged with 2 separate info, transporting
and delivering AND possession
4. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. RTC
rendered a joint judgment of conviction. CA affirmed
WON jurisdiction over the person was acquired? YES
1. appellant never objected to the irregularity of his
arrest before arraignment.
2. 1st time to raise issue in SC lapse considered
3. he actively participated in trial voluntary
submission so waived his right to question validity of
arrest.

4. Appellants warrantless arrest cannot be basis of

acquittal. BUT he was nonetheless acquitted for
insufficiency of evidence.

1. 5 info for libel filed in the RTC against Miaque

2. These were quashed:
a. Failure to allege that Aragona actually held
office in Iloilo city at time of the commission
of the offenses
b. OR that the libelous remarks were printed or
first published in Iloilo city.
3. New informations were signed and filed by Assistant
provincial prosecutor Maranon
4. Petitioner filed a motion not to issue the warrant of
arrest which respondent judge denied. MR also
denied.

2. Petitioners filed a motion for reinvestigation praying

that the charge be murder and frustrated murder
instead
3. City prosec found that the appropriate charges were
murder and FM.
4. JJ appealed to DOJ, who directed the city prosec to
amend the informations for M/FM to H/FH
5. Petitioners MR denied.
6. City prosec filed with RTC motion for withdrawal of
information of M/FM and admission of new
information of H/FH
7. Judge cruz granted it.
8. After re-raffling the case to a different branch, Judge
hidalgo made his own assessment and granted the
motion, reinstating the info for M/FM. MR denied.
9. JJ filed petition for cert and prob with Ca. CA granted
JJ and nullified the order of Judge hidalgo ruling that it
was issued in grave abuse of discretion.

WON provincial prosec office has authority to file and sign

the new informations against petitioner? NO

WON judge may review the finding of SoJ on the existence of

probable cause? YES

1. authority lies with the CITY prosecutor office

2. the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case
because there is a defect in the information
3. lack of authority of signing officer cannot be cured by
sience and may be raised at any stage of the
proceeding
4. defective information can never be the basis of a
valid conviction

1. once info is filed in court, any disposition rests on the

sound discretion of the court.
2. The ruling of SoJ is persuasive, it is not binding on
courts!!!
3. It must be evaluated before proceeding to trial

MIAQUE vs. PATAG

BALTAZAR vs CHUA
1. Jaime and jovito charged before RTC manila for
homicide and frustrated homicide.

PEOPLE vs TEODORO
1. teodoro was charged under 3 separate info of rape
before RTC of batangas
2. 1st case - on or about 18th day of june
3. 2nd case sometime first week of July 1995
4. 3rd case on the 30th day of March 1996
5. the RTC convicted the appellant of 2 counts of
statutory rape.

6. Teodoro argued that the info in the second case was

vague and insufficient because the exact date of the
crime was not stated
WON information was defective? NO
1. it is not necessary to state the PRECISE DATE the
offense was committed EXCEPT when the date is a
material element of the offense.
LEVISTE vs ALAMEDA
1. leviste was charged with homicide before RTC of
Makati for the death of de las alas.
2. His heirs, filed an urgent omnibus motion to defer
proceedings to allow public prosec to reinvestigate
and determine proper offense. RTC issued the order
3. RTC admitted the amended info for murder and
directed the issuance of WoA.

4. Upon arraignment, petitioner refused to plead.

5. TC found him guilty of homicide. CA denied appeal.
WON amendment of info from homicide to murder is
considered substantial which would make it a duty of the
prosecution to ask for a PI? YES!!!!
1. substantial amendment consists of recital of facts
constituting the offense charged and determinative
of the jurisdiction of the court
2. the test is:
a. whether a defense for the original info would
be available
b. whether any evidence would be equally
applicable to the new information
3. What is essential is that petitioner was placed on
guard to defend himself from the charge of murder