Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Antiporda vs.

Garchitorena
GR No. 133289
23 December 1999
FACTS
Petitioners were charged with the crime of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos which was filed before the Sandiganbayan
without claiming that one of the accused Antiporda is a public officer who took advantage of this position. The
information was ordered amended by the Court to effectively describe the offense charged herein and for the court to
effectively exercise its jurisdiction. Accused filed a motion for new preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance
and/or recall the issued warrant of arrest. These were denied. The accused subsequently file a motion to quash the
amended information on the ground that the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged. This was
denied. A motion for reconsideration was filed but it was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter
HELD
Yes. The case of Arula vs. Espino enumerates the following requirements wherein a court acquires jurisdiction to try a
criminal case, to wit: (1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of, (2) the offense
must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and (3) the person charged with the offense must have
been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.
Petitioners questioned the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan over the case yet they insist that said
court acquired jurisdiction over their motion to quash. It is undisputed that the Sandiganbayan had territorial
jurisdiction over the case. Filing a motion to quash is tantamount to a voluntary submission to the Court's authority.
Further, the petitioners are estopped from assailing said Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction for in the supplemental
arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation filed with the same court, it was they who challenged
the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the
same crime is work connected. It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question the
same jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppels and it was thus vested
with the authority to order the amendment of the Information pursuant to Rule 110, Sec. 14 of the Rules of Court.