You are on page 1of 2

ANTIPORDA, JR. v.

GARCHITORENA [ABALOS]
G.R. No. 133289 |December 23, 1999 5. ANTIPORDA then filed a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance
LICERIO A. ANTIPORDA, JR., ELITERIO RUBIACO, VICTOR GASCON and CAESAR TALIA vs. HON. and/or recall warrant of arrest issued which was also denied on the ground that there was
FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, HON. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, HON. CATALINO CASTAÑEDA, nothing in the Amended Information that was added to the original Information so that the
JR. in their capacity as Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan ANTIPORDA could not claim a right to be heard separately in an investigation in the
Amended Information. Additionally, the Court ruled that ‘since none of the accused have
Recit Ready: Accused (Antiporda et.al) were charged with the crime of kidnapping Ramos submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court, the accused are not in a position to be
and was filed with the SANDIGANBAYAN without claiming that one of the accused is a public heard on this matter at this time’.
officer who took advantage of his position. The information was amended to effectively
describe the offense charged herein and for the court to effectively exercise its jurisdiction 6. Antiporda filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction over
over the same by stating that Antiporda took advantage of his position. Accused filed a the offense charged which was denied as the accused failed to submit themselves to the
motion for new preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance and/or recall warrant of jurisdiction of the Court.
arrest issued. The same was denied. The accused subsequently filed a motion to quash the
amended information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged because of the 7. MR was filed stating that appearance of counsel amounted to voluntary appearance but
amended information. This was denied as well as the MR on the same. Hence, this petition the same was denied, hence this petition.
before the Supreme Court.
Issue/s: W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case? – YES through ESTOPPEL.
The issue was w/n sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case and the Court held that yes
Sandiganbayan did since the petitioners were estopped from questioning such. It is a well- W/N Reinvestigation is proper – NO.
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 Ruling: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED
question that same jurisdiction.
Ratio: Petition is devoid of merit.
Doctrine: What is Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for
administering justice, that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have 1. Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice, that
authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of
matter and the parties. the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties.
When a Reinvestigation is proper: A reinvestigation is proper only if the accused’s substantial 2. The Sandiganbayan exercises not only civil but also criminal jurisdiction. Criminal
rights would be impaired. In the case at bar, we do not find that their rights would be unduly jurisdiction. Arula vs. Espino enumerates the requirements wherein a court acquires
prejudiced if the Amended Information is filed without a reinvestigation taking place. jurisdiction to try a criminal case:
(1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of,
Facts: (2) the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and
1. This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or (3) the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for
Temporary Restraining Order to restrain the respondent Justices of the First Division of the trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.”
Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with the current case. 3. The petitioners argue that:
a. Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because the
2. Accused Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla were original information did not allege that one of the petitioners (ANTIPORDA), Jr., took
charged with the crime of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos (armed with guns and with the use of advantage of his position as MAYOR of Buguey, Cagayan to order the kidnapping of
a Tamaraw FX). The case was filed with the SANDIGANBAYAN1 Ramos.
b. A Court lacking jurisdiction cannot order the amendment of the information.4
3. November 10, 1997: Prosecutor Agacaoili2 to submit the amendment to the information to 4. It is undisputed that the SANDIGANBAYAN had territorial jurisdiction over the case
which she did. 3 Antiporda then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that a BUT The original information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the
reinvestigation of the case be conducted and the issance of warrants of arrest be deferred offense committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was
which was denied. filed that the prosecution belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted
therein.
1 Comprised of the Honorable Francis E. Garchitorena, Edilberto E. Sandoval, and Catalino Castañeda, Jr.
2 Evelyn T. Lucero Agacaoili 4 they contend however that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the persons of the accused.
3 Add’l Notes for the amended information
5. HOWEVER, Petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to MR and/or reinvestigation it
was they who challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case and clearly stated in
their MR that the said crime is work connected.
6. 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 that same jurisdiction.
7. SANDIGANBAYAN has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was thus
vested with the authority to order the amendment of the Information.

As per reinvestigation:
8. As stated in Rule 110, Section 145 in the ROC, Petitioner prayed that a reinvestigation
in view of the Amended Information but the Court held that reinvestigation is not
necessary anymore. A reinvestigation is proper only if the accused’s substantial
rights would be impaired.
9. In the case at bar, Petitioners’ rights would NOT be unduly prejudiced if the Amended
Information is filed without a reinvestigation taking place. The amendments made to
the Information merely describe the public positions held by the accused/petitioners
and stated where the victim was brought when he was kidnapped.

Who Won?:

Additional Notes:
Amended Information:
“That on or about September 10, 1997, at Sanchez Mira, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the accused Licerio Antiporda, Jr., being the Municipal Mayor of
Buguey, Cagayan in the exercise of his official duties as such and taking advantage of his
position, ordered, confederated and conspired with Juan Gallardo, Barangay Captain of San
Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan (now deceased) and accused Eliterio Rubiaco, barangay
councilman of San Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan, Vicente Gascon and Caesar Talla with the use
of firearms, force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously kidnap and abduct the victim Elmer Ramos without any authority of law from his
residence at Marzan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan against his will, with the use of a Maroon
Tamaraw FX motor vehicle and subsequently bring and detain him illegally at the residence of
accused Mayor Licerio Antiporda, Jr. for more than five (5) days.

5 Section 14. Amendment.—The information or complaint may be amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time
before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when
the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.