7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 1/12

TodayisSaturday,July25,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L108208March11,1994

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs.HON.MAXIMIANOC.ASUNCION,asPresidingJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch104ofQuezonCity,andALEXANDERDIONISIOYMANIO,respondents.HON.CONRADOM.VASQUEZ,Ombudsman,intervenorrespondent.

TheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.

DeGuzman,Florentino,Celis,Moncupa&Torioforprivaterespondent.

DAVIDE,JR.,J.:

Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6975 1 provides that "criminal cases involving PNP members shall be within theexclusivejurisdictionoftheregularcourts."Theprincipalissueinthiscaseiswhethertheterm"regularcourts"includestheSandiganbayan. Petitioner maintains that it does not while the respondent Judge and the intervenorrespondent holdotherwise.

Section46readsasfollows:

Sec. 46. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,criminalcasesinvolvingPNPmembersshallbewithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheregularcourts:Provided,ThatthecourtsmartialappointedpursuanttoPresidentialDecreeNo.1850shallcontinuetotryPCINPmemberswhohavealreadybeenarraigned,toincludeappropriateactionsthereonbythereviewingauthoritiespursuanttoCommonwealthActNo.408,otherwiseknownastheArticlesofWar,asamended,andExecutiveOrderNo.178,otherwiseknownastheManualforCourtsMartial:Provided, further, That criminal cases against PCINP members who may have not yet beenarraigned upon the effectivity of this Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincialprosecutorormunicipaltrialcourtjudge.

Thefactualandproceduralantecedentsinthiscaseareasfollows:

On 31 July 1991, private respondent Alexander Dionisio yManio, amember of the Philippine National Police(PNP)assignedtotheCentralPoliceDistrictCommandStation2inNovaliches,QuezonCity,wasdispatchedbyhisCommandingOfficer toDumalayStreet inNovaliches to respond toacomplaint thatapersonwascreatingtroublethere.Dionisioproceededtothatplace,wherehesubsequentlyshottodeathT/Sgt.RomeoSadang.

On7August1991,pursuanttoSection7,Rule112oftheRulesofCourt,theOfficeoftheCityProsecutorfiledwith theRegionalTrialCourt (RTC)ofQuezonCity an Information 2 charging Dionisio with the crime of homicidecommittedasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe31stdayofJuly,1991,inQuezonCity,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,withintenttokill,andwithoutanyjustifiablemotive,did thenand there,wilfully,unlawfullyand feloniouslyattack,assaultandemploypersonalviolenceupon the person of one T/SGT. ROMEOSADANGYMACABEO, by then and there shooting thelatterwiththeuseofagun,.45caliberpistol,therebyinflictinguponthelattergunshotwoundsonhisneckandonhisthorax,whichwerethedirectandimmediatecauseofhisdeath,tothedamageandprejudice of the heirs of said T/SGT. ROMEOSADANGYMACABEO in such amount asmay be

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 2/12

awardedtothemundertheprovisionsoftheCivilCode.

Contrarytolaw.

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q9123224 and was raffled off to Branch 104 of the RTC,prescribedoverbytherespondentJudge.

On4September1992,whiletrialwasalreadyinprogress,therespondentJudgeissued,motuproprio,anorder3requiringtheprosecutionandthedefensetocommentonwhethertheCourtshouldstillproceedwiththetrialofthecase:

[i]nviewof thedecisionof theSupremeCourt in thecaseofDelosovs.Domingo (Vol.191SCRA,545),quotedasfollows:

The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials whenpenalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision correccional (Sec. 4,subpar.(c),P.D.1606).Themurderchargeagainstthepetitionercarriesthepenaltyofreclusion temporal in its maximum period of death (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code),hence, it is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and the Ombudsman has primaryjurisdictiontoinvestigateit.

InhisOrderof24September1992,4 therespondentJudgedismissedCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224"for refilingwiththeSandiganbayan"onthegroundthattheSandiganbayan,andnottheRegionalTrialCourt,hasjurisdictionoverthecase.Thebodyoftheorderreads:

Which Court has jurisdiction over police officers who are charged with the crime of homicide ormurder?

AccusedQuezon City Patrolman Alexander Dionisio yManio is being tried for homicide for killingT/Sgt.RomeoSadangyMacabeoonJuly31,1991inQuezonCity.Severalwitnesseswerealreadypresentedby theprosecution.Nobody raised the issueof jurisdiction.OnSeptember 4, 1992, theCourt issuedanorderrequiringtheprosecutionandthedefensetocommentonwhethertheCourthasjurisdictionoverthematterinviewoftherulingoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofDelosovs.Domingo,191SCRA945[sic]whichrulesasfollows:

TheSandiganbayanhasjurisdictionoveroffensescommittedbypublicofficialswhenthepenalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision correccional (Sec. 4,subpar.(c),P.D.1606).Themurderchargeagainstthepetitionercarriesthepenaltyofreclusiontemporalinmaximumperiodtodeath(Art.248,RevisedPenalCode),hence,it iscognizablebytheSandiganbayan,andtheOmbudsmanhasprimaryjurisdictiontoinvestigateit.

Asamatterof fact,even if theactorcrime isnot related toorconnectedwithorarising from theperformanceofofficialduty,itmustbeinvestigatedbytheOmbudsmanoranyofitsdulydeputizedrepresentative:

The clause "any (illegal) act or omission of any public official" is broad enough toembraceanycrimecommittedbyapublicofficial.Thelawdoesnotqualifythenatureofthe illegalactoromissionof thepublicofficialoremployee that theOmbudsmanmayinvestigate. It doesnot require that theactoromissionbe related toorbeconnectedwithorarise from, theperformanceofofficialduty.Since the lawdoesnotdistinguish,neithershouldwe.

TheSandiganbayan,althoughtryingonlycertainspecialclassesofcrimes,stillcanbeclassifiedasaregular court functioningwithin the frameworkof the judicialdepartmentof thegovernment. It isa"trialcourtandboundbytherulesgoverningtrialcourts.Itisoneofthe'inferiorcourts'inArticleXofthe Constitution whose jurisdiction may be questioned before the Supreme Court and whosejudgmentsaresubject to its review, revision,affirmanceorsettingaside.The independenceof thejudiciaryenshrinedintheConstitutioncallsfortheunitaryjudicialsystemwiththeSupremeCourtatthe topof thehierarchical setup" (RulesofCriminalProceduresbyDr.FortunatoGupit, Jr., 1986Edition,p.26).

Conformably therefore to theforegoingconsideration, theregularcourt referredto inSection46ofRepublicAct6975 (AnActestablishing thePhilippineNationalPolice) is theSandiganbayan.Sincethepenaltyforhomicide,thechargeagainsttheaccused,carriesthepenaltyofreclusion temporal,saidcase iscognizableby theSandiganbayanand theOmbudsmanhas theprimary jurisdiction toinvestigateit.(Art.249,RPC).

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 3/12

WHEREFORE,theaboveentitledcaseisherebydismissedforrefilingwiththeSandiganbayan.

On6October1992,theprivateprosecutormovedforareconsideration5of thedismissal,citing theopinionof theSecretaryofJusticeof31July19916that"crimescommittedbyPNPmembersarenotcognizablebytheSandiganbayan"because"[t]heyfallwithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheregularcourts"asprovidedinSection46ofR.A.No.6975and"[t]heSandiganbayanisnotaregularcourtbutaspecialcourt."

TherespondentJudgedeniedthemotionintheOrderof7October1992:7

TheopinionoftheSecretaryofJusticedatedJuly31,1992[sic]...isnotbindingtothisCourt.

ThisCourtstillholds that theregularCourtsreferredto inSec.46ofRA6975(AnActestablishingthePhilippineNationalPolice)includestheSandiganbayanwhichhasexclusiveoriginaljurisdictiontotry offenses on felonies committed by public officers in relation to their office, whether simple orcomplexwith other crimeswhere thepenalty prescribedby law is higher than prision correccional(Sec.4,par.c,PD1606)

Whatiscontemplatedinthelawistheregularcivilcourttotheexclusionofnonregularcourtssuchasmilitarycourtswhichhadpreviousjurisdictionoverpoliceofficers.Thepoliceforcebeingcivilianincharacter should be under the jurisdiction of the civil court. What is meant by "regular courts"mentionedinSec.46,RA6975arethe"inferiorcourts"inArticleXoftheconstitutionwhichcallsforaunitary judicialsystemwith theSupremeCourtat the topof thehierarchicalsetup (Rules inCrim.ProcedurebyDr.FortunatoGupit,page26,1986edition).

On6January1993,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetition.Werequiredtherespondentstocommentthereon.

On5February1993, theofficeof theOmbudsman filedamotion for leave to interveneand to filecomment 8alleging that its constitutional duty to investigate criminal cases against public officers, including PNPmembers, and toprosecutecasescognizablebytheSandiganbayanareaffectedbytheissueraisedandthattheofficeoftheOmbudsmanandtheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ)hadissuedajointcircularon14October19919wherein(a)bothagenciesagreedthat,subjecttothefinaldeterminationbycompetentauthorities,theterm"regularcourts"inSection46ofR.A.No.6975refersto"civiliancourts"asdistinguishedfrommilitarycourts,and(b)certainguidelineswereadoptedtogoverntheinvestigationandprosecutionofPNPmembers.Attached to themotion is theOmbudsman'sComment10 on the petition.Wegranted thismotiontointervene,admittedtheComment,andrequiredpetitionertoreplythereto.11

IntheirseparateComments,12therespondentJudgereiteratesthereasonsstatedintheassailedorders,andtheprivaterespondentconcurswiththepositionandamplifiestheargumentsoftheOmbudsman.

PetitionerfileditsReply13totheCommentsoftherespondentsandtheintervenor.

On6 July 1993,we resolved to consider the separate comments of the respondents as answers, to give duecoursetothepetition,andtorequirethepartiestofilesimultaneouslytheirrespectivememorandawithintwentydaysfromnotice,whichtheydid,withthepetitionersubmittingitsmemorandumonlyon29December1993afterobtainingseveralextensionsoftimetodoso.

Inthemain,petitioner insiststhat thedismissalof thecriminalcasebelow,"forrefilingwiththeSandiganbayan"waserroneousbecauseSection46ofR.A.No.6975vests theexclusive jurisdiction incriminal cases involvingPNPmembers only in the "regular courts" which excludes the Sandiganbayan since it is, constitutionally andstatutorily,a"specialcourt"andnotaregularcourt.Tobolsterthisclaim,petitionerpointstoSection5,ArticleXIIIofthe1973ConstitutionwhichdescribedtheSandiganbayanas"aspecialcourt"andSection4,ArticleXIofthe1987Constitutionwhichprovidesthat"[t]hepresentantigraftcourtknownastheSandiganbayanshallcontinuetofunctionandexerciseitsjurisdictionasnoworhereaftermaybeprovidedbylaw."

Itfurtherassertsthat(a)if itweretheintentionofR.A.No.6975togranttotheSandiganbayanjurisdictionoverPNP members, then Section 46 should have explicitly stated or used the term "civil courts" considering thatmembersoftheIntegratedNationalPolice(INP)werethenintegratedwithandundertheoperationalcontrolandadministrativesetupofthePhilippineConstabulary(PC)and,underP.D.No.1850,weresubjecttocourtmartialproceedingsforallcrimescognizablebythecivilcourts(b)ifitweretheintentionofR.A.No.6975toincludetheSandiganbayanintheterm"regularcourts"inSection46,thenitshouldnothaveprovidedthereinthat"criminalcasesagainstPCINPmemberswhomayhavenot yet been arraigned upon the effectivity of this Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincialprosecutorormunicipaltrialcourtjudge"instead,itshouldhavedirectedsuchtransferto"theOmbudsmanortheSpecial Prosecutor since the Ombudsman or the Special Prosecutor is mandated by law to entertain casescognizable only by the Sandiganbayan" under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6770 and (c) there is an irreconcilableconflict between Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 and Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 (revising P.D. No. 1486 which

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 4/12

createdtheSandiganbayan),asamended,whichvestsintheSandiganbayanexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionover"[o]theroffensesor feloniescommittedbypublicofficersandemployees in relation to theiroffice . . .where thepenaltyprescribedbylawishigherthanprisioncorreccional...orafineofP6,000.00"thelatterthenshouldbedeemedimpliedlyrepealedbytheformer,whichisalaterlaw.

PetitionerfinallycontendsthatP.D.No.1606,asamended,isagenerallawofitappliestoallpublicofficers,whileR.A.No.6975isaspeciallawforitsetsoutaspecialruleofjurisdictionforPNPmembers.Thelattershouldthusprevail.

PetitionerthenpraysthattheassailedordersofrespondentJudgeof24September1992and7October1992bereversedandsetasideandthattherespondentJudgebedirectedtoreinstateandcontinuethetrialofCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224.

Ontheotherhand,theOmbudsmanmaintainstheviewthat it is theSandiganbayanandnottheRegionalTrialCourtwhichhas jurisdictionover thesubject criminal case in viewofSection4ofP.D.No.1606and theJointCircularof14October1991.Itassertsthattheterm"regularcourts"inSection46ofR.A.No.6975includestheSandiganbayanandthatR.A.No.6975hasnotrepealedSection4ofP.D.No.1606.

Amplifying itsview, itopines that: (a)while theSandiganbayan isaspecialcourt, it isa regularcourtwithin thecontextofSection46ofR.A.No.6975becauseitisa"courtnormallyfunctioningwithcontinuitywithinthejurisdictionvestedinit,"andthattheterm"regularcourts"isusedinSection46ofR.A.No.6975todistinguishthesaidcourtsfromthecourtmartialforitseekstodivestthelatterofsuchjurisdictionandmandatesitstransfertotheformerpursuanttothepolicyofthe law toestablishapolice forcenational in scopeand civilian in character and (b) since the creationof theSandiganbayan is mandated by the Constitution 14 to take cognizance of crimes committed by public officers inrelationtotheirofficeandP.D.No.1606createditpursuanttosuchmandate,thentherepealofthelatter,assuggestedbypetitioner,would diminish and dilute the constitutional jurisdiction of theSandiganbayan andwould operate to amend theConstitution,whichnostatutecando.Moreover,thereisnoirreconcilableinconsistencybetweenthetwolawstowarrantanimpliedrepeal.

Finally,theOmbudsmanassertsthattheprovisoinSection46ofR.A.No.6975that"criminalcasesagainstPCINPmemberswhomayhavenot yetbeenarraignedupon theeffectivityof thisAct shall be transferred to theproper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge" only means a referral to the proper city orprovincialprosecutorormunicipaltrialcourtjudgeforappropriatepreliminaryinvestigationandnotthefilingofthecriminal information with the proper court it being a fact that all city and provincial prosecutors have beendeputizedbytheOmbudsmantoconductpreliminaryinvestigationofcasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan.

Astowhichlawisthespeciallaw,theOmbudsmanmaintainsthatitisP.D.No.1606becauseitdealsspecificallywith the jurisdictionof theSandiganbayanwhileSection46ofR.A.No.6975doesnotspecificallymentionanyparticularcourt.

Theresolutionoftheprincipalissuehingesontheinterpretationofthetermregularcourts inSection46ofR.A.No.6975which,inturn,requiresaninquiryintothelegislativeintentandpurposeofthelaw.

Therecanbenodoubt that theprovisionsofR.A.No.6975on thePNPare intended to implementSection6,ArticleXVI(GeneralProvisions)ofthe1987Constitutionwhichreads:

Sec.6.TheStateshallestablishandmaintainonepoliceforce,whichshallbenationalinscopeandcivilianincharacter,tobeadministeredandcontrolledbyanationalpolicecommission.Theauthorityoflocalexecutivesoverthepoliceunitsintheirjurisdictionshallbeprovidedbylaw.

ThesponsorsofHouseBillNo.23614,15whichtogetherwithSenateBillNo.46316eventuallybecameR.A.No.6975wereunequivocalonthis.RepresentativeAntonioCerilles,afterreferringtotheaforementionedmandate,declared:

Todayisadatewithhistory,Mr.Speaker,whenthisaugustchamberwilltryitsbesttopursuewhatismandated by theConstitution. Today, we shall insist, though legislative fiat, that the State shouldestablishandmaintainonepoliceforce.Itsciviliancharacteronanationalscopeshallbeparamount.Today,weshould insist thatnooffice inanyelementorunitof thepoliceforcecanbeoccupiedorrunbymilitarypersonnelandofficer.Weshouldalso insist that theonlywaytoprofessionalizeourpoliceforceistoseparatethemfromtheArmedForcesofthePhilippines.17

Inthissponsorshipspeech,RepresentativeNereoJoaquinstated:

First and foremost among all these is, as already mentioned earlier, the fact that the bill isundoubtedlyinharmonyandinconformitynotonlywiththeletterbutmoreimportantlywiththespiritofthenewConstitutionparticularlySection6ofArticleXVI,theGeneralProvisions....18

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 5/12

Police forces have traditionally been under civilian authority. However, the dictatorial regime of thenPresidentFerdinandMarcos,consistentwithhisownagendatostrengthenthemachineryofmartial lawrule,exploitedtohisadvantagetheprovisionofthe1973Constitutionwhichmandatedtheestablishmentandmaintenanceof"anintegratednationalpolice forcewhoseorganization,administration,andoperationshallbeprovidedby law."19First, he issued a series of decrees consolidating and integrating various local police forces and placing them under theoperational control, direction, and supervision of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) 20 then on 8 August 1975, hepromulgatedP.D.No.765which"establishedandconstitutedtheIntegratedNationalPolicewhichshallbecomposedofthePhilippineConstabularyas thenucleus,andthe integratedpolice forcesasestablishedbyPresidentialDecreesNos.421,482,531,585and641,ascomponents,undertheDepartmentofNationalDefense."Bythisdecree,Mr.Marcossucceededin militarizing the police forces by making them mere components of the PC which was then one of the four majorcommandsoftheArmedForcesofthePhilippines(AFP).Hedidnotstopthere.For,evenafterthefarcicalliftingofMartialLawin1981throughProclamationNo.2045,andpursuanttotheinfamousAmendmentNo.6ofthe1973Constitution,21hepromulgated on 4 October 1982 P.D. 1850 which provided for courtmartial jurisdiction over police officers, policemen,firemen,andjailguards.Section1thereofreads:

Sec.1.CourtMartialJurisdictionoverIntegratedNationalPoliceandMembersoftheArmedForces. Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding (a) uniformed members of theIntegrated National Police who commit any crime or offense cognizable by the civil courts shallhenceforthbeexclusivelytriedbycourtsmartialpursuanttoandinaccordancewithCommonwealthActNo.408,asamended,otherwiseknownastheArticlesofWar(b)allpersonssubjecttomilitarylaw under Article 2 of the aforecited Articles of War who commit any crime or offense shall beexclusivelytriedbycourtsmartialortheircasedisposedofunderthesaidArticlesofWarProvided,that, ineitheroftheaforementionedsituations,thecaseshallbedisposedofortriedbythepropercivilorjudicialauthoritieswhencourtmartialjurisdictionovertheoffensehasprescribedunderArticle38ofCommonwealthActNumbered408,asamended,orcourtmartialjurisdictionoverthepersonoftheaccusedmilitaryorIntegratedNationalPolicepersonnelcannolongerbeexercisedbyvirtueoftheirseparation fromtheactiveservicewithout jurisdictionhavingdulyattachedbeforehandunlessotherwiseprovidedbylaw.

Asusedherein, the termuniformedmembersof the IntegratedNationalPoliceshall refer topoliceofficers,policemen,firemenandjailguards.

Inamannerofspeaking,thisdecreecompletedthemilitarizationoftheINPandconsummatedtheaberrationinthepoliceorganization.Twoyearslater,oron5September1984,heissuedP.D.No.1952whichamendedP.D. No. 1850 by inserting a proviso to the first paragraph of Section 1 granting himself the authority "in theinterest of justice, [to] order or direct, at any time before arraignment, that a particular case be tried by theappropriatecivilcourt."

Before P.D. No. 1850, or specifically on 16 January 1981,Mr. Marcos, through P.D. No. 1822, placed undercourtmartialjurisdiction,pursuanttotheArticlesofWar,allofficers,soldiers,andpersonnelintheactiveserviceoftheAFPorofthePC,chargedwithanycrimeoroffenserelatedtotheperformanceoftheirduties.

Needless to state, the overwhelming sentiment of the framers of the 1987Constitution against themartial lawregime22andthemilitarizationofthepoliceforcespromptedthemtoexplicitlydirecttheestablishmentandmaintenanceof one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character. This civilian character is unqualified andunconditionaland is, therefore,allembracing.TheDeclarationofPolicy (Section2)ofR.A.No.6975 faithfullycarriedoutthismandatewhenitdeclaredthereinthat:

The police force shall be organized, trained and equipped primarily for the performance of policefunctions.Itsnationalscopeandciviliancharactershallbeparamount.NoelementofthepoliceforceshallbemilitarynorshallanypositionthereofbeoccupiedbyactivemembersoftheArmedForcesofthePhilippines.

That civilian character refers to its orientation and structure. Thus, during a bicameral conference committeemeetingonHouseBillNo.23614andSenateBillNo.463,SenatorEdgardoAngararemarked:

SENATORANGARA:

That's what we're trying to interpret nga eh. Civilian in character meaning, wereseparating the police both in orientation and structure from themilitary discipline andstructure,Ithinkthat'sessentiallythemandatewe'retryingtoimplement.

Civiliancharacternecessarilyincludes,accordingtohim:

SENATORANGARA:

Civiliansystemofjusticena.23

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 6/12

ItisthusevidentthatthemandateofSection46ofR.A.No.6975istodivestcourtsmartialofanyjurisdictionovercriminalcasesinvolvingPNPmembersandtoreturnortransferthatjurisdictiontothecivilcourts.Thisreturnortransfer of jurisdiction to the civil courtswas explicitly provided for in the original Section 68 ofHouseBill No.23614whichreadsasfollows:

Sec.68.Jurisdiction incriminal cases.Anyprovisionof the law to thecontrarynotwithstanding,criminalcases involvingPNPmembersshall, immediatelyuponeffectivityof thisAct,beexclusivelytriedbytheCivilCourts:Provided,however,ThatincaseswhereamemberofthePNPisunabletopostbail,hemaybeplaceduponorderbythecourtunderthecustodyofhissupervisoruponpetitionofthelatter.24

UponmotionofRepresentativeRodolfoAlbano,acceptedbytheCommitteeandapprovedinplenarysession,thissectionwasamended,toreadasfollows:

ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING, CRIMINAL CASESINVOLVINGPNPMEMBERSSHALLBEWITHIN THEEXCLUSIVE JURISDICTIONOF THECIVILCOURTS.25

Inthecourseoftheinterpellationonhisamendment,Mr.AlbanohadtheoccasiontoemphasizethepurposeofthelawandthetransferofjurisdictiontocivilcourtsofcriminalcasesinvolvingmembersofthePNP:

MR.ALBANO:

Considering that we are creating here a purely civilian police force, he [the PNPmember]should,therefore,alsofallunderourcivilforce,andthereshouldbenoiotaofmilitarysyndrome[referringtotheprovisoinSec.68]sotospeak.26

During thedeliberationby theBicameralConferenceCommitteeonNationalDefenseonHouseBillNo.23614andSenateBillNo.463,morespecificallyonSection68of the former, itsChairman,SenatorErnestoMaceda,usedtheterm"regularcourts"inlieuofcivilcourts.Thus:

THECHAIRMAN(SEN.MACEDA):

Okay,ReyatsakaiyongHouse,youworkontheflowchart.

Sootherthanthatinthatparticularsection,anobaitong"Jurisdictionincriminalcases?"Whatisthisallabout?

REP.ZAMORA:

Incasetheyarechargedwithcrimes.

THECHAIRMAN(SEN.MACEDA):

Ah, the previous one is administrative, 'no.Now, if it is chargedwith a crime, regularcourts.27

The term regular courts was finally carried into the reconciled bill, 28 entitled "An Act Establishing the PhilippineNational Police Under a Reorganization Department of the Interior and Local Government, and for Other Purposes," andincorporated in theConferenceCommitteeReport receivedby theOfficeof theSecretaryof theSenateon19November1990. Section 46 of the proposed reconciled bill is Section 68 of House Bill No. 23614, with further modifications andamendments.ThereconciledbillwasapprovedbysuchbothHouseofCongressandbecameR.A.No.6975.

The foregoing considered, we have no doubt that the terms civil courts and regular courts were usedinterchangeably orwere consideredas synonymousby theBicameralConferenceCommitteeand thenby theSenateand theHouseofRepresentatives.Accordingly, the term regularcourts inSection46ofR.A.No.6975meanscivilcourts.TherecouldhavebeennoothermeaningintendedsincetheprimarypurposeofthelawistoremovefromcourtsmartialthejurisdictionovercriminalcasesinvolvingmembersofthePNPandtovestitinthecourtswithin our judicial system, i.e., the civil courtswhich, as contradistinguished fromcourtsmartial, are theregular courts.Courtsmartial are not courtswithin thePhilippine judicial system they pertain to the executivedepartmentofthegovernmentandaresimplyinstrumentalitiesoftheexecutivepower.29Otherwisestated,courtsmartialarenotregularcourts.

Parenthetically,inQuiloavs.TheGeneralCourtMartial,30thisCourtfoundcorrectandimpliedlyadoptedasitsownastatementoftheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralinitsCommentthatSection46ofR.A.No.6975mandatesthetransferofcriminalcasesagainstmembersofthePNPtotheciviliancourts.Thus:

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 7/12

Moreover,ascorrectlypointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneralinhiscomment

xxxxxxxxx

The civilian character with which the PNP is expressly invested is declared by RA 6975 asparamount, and, in line therewith, the law mandates the transfer of criminal cases against itsmemberstociviliancourts.31

Havingthusruledthattheterm"regularcourts"inSection46ofR.A.No.6975referstothecivilcourts,wemustnowdetermineiftheSandiganbayanisincludedinthatterm.

Regularcourtsarethosewithinthejudicialdepartmentofthegovernment,namely,theSupremeCourtandsuchlowercourtsasmaybeestablishedbylaw.32PerSection16,Chapter4,BookIIoftheAdministrativeCodeof1987,33such lower courts "include the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Shari'aDistrictCourts,MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourt,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourts,andShari'aCircuitCourts."

TheSandiganbayanwascreatedbyP.D.No.148634pursuant to themandateofSection5,ArticleXIIIof the1973Constitution.35ThiswasrevisedbyP.D.No.1606.36ThelatterwasamendedbyP.D.No.186037andlastlybyP.D.No.1861.38UndertheamendmentsintroducedbyP.D.No.1861,theSandiganbayanhasjurisdictionoverthefollowingcases:

Sec.4.Jurisdiction.TheSandiganbayanshallexercise:

(a)Exclusiveoriginaljurisdictioninallcasesinvolving:

(1)ViolationsofRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,otherwiseknownastheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,RepublicActNo.1379,andChapterII,Section2,TitleVIIoftheRevisedPenalCode

(2)Otheroffensesorfeloniescommittedbypublicofficersandemployeesinrelationtotheiroffice, including thoseemployed ingovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations,whethersimpleorcomplexedwithothercrimes,wherethepenaltyprescribedbylawishigherthanprisioncorreccionalorimprisonmentforsix(6)years,orafineofP6,000.00:PROVIDED,HOWEVER,thatoffensesorfeloniesmentionedinthisparagraphwherethepenaltyprescribedby lawdoesnotexceedprisioncorreccionalor imprisonment forsix(6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court,MetropolitanTrialCourt,MunicipalTrialCourtandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourt.

(b)Exclusiveappellatejurisdiction:

(1) On appeal, from the final judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional TrialCourtsincasesoriginallydecidedbythemintheirrespectiveterritorialjurisdiction.

(2)Bypetitionforreview,fromthefinaljudgments,resolutionorordersoftheRegionalTrialCourtsintheexerciseoftheirappellatejurisdictionovercasesoriginallydecidedbytheMetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts,intheirrespectivejurisdiction....

Undoubtedlythen,theSandiganbayanisaregularcourtandisthusincludedinthetermregularcourtsinSection46ofR.A.No.6975.

Petitioner's insistence that it is not because, by the Constitution and by the statutes, the Sandiganbayan is aspecialcourtand,therefore,notaregularcourtisuntenable.Inthefirstplace,acomparisonbetweenthewordsregularand special is inappropriate since the opposite of the latter is not the former and vice versa. Specialmeans"designed foraparticularpurposeconfined toaparticularpurpose,object,person,orclass,"39 and is,therefore, the antonym of general. 40 On the other hand, regular means "steady or uniform in course, practice, oroccurrence,"asopposed tocasualoroccasional.41 Inotherwords,specialandgeneralare categories in the distributiveorder.42Withreferencethentothecourts,theyprincipallyrelatetojurisdiction.Thus,therearecourtsofgeneraljurisdictionandcourtsofspecialjurisdiction. It is,ofcourse, incorrecttosaythatonlycourtsofgeneral jurisdictionareregularcourts.Courtsofspecialjurisdiction,whicharepermanentincharacter,arealsoregularcourts.TheSandiganbayanisacourtwithspecial jurisdictionbecause its creationasapermanentantigraft court is constitutionallymandatedand its jurisdiction islimitedtocertainclassesofoffenses.

ThattheSandiganbayanisamongtheregularcourts isfurtherstrongly indicatedbySection1ofP.D.No.1606whichvestsuponit"alltheinherentpowersofacourtofjustice"andplacesiton"thesamelevelastheCourtofAppeals," and by Section 4 thereof, as amended by P.D. No. 1861, which grants itappellate jurisdiction overcertain cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 8/12

MunicipalCircuitTrialCourts.

Thereis,aswell,nomeritinthetheoryofpetitionerthatSection46ofR.A.No.6975impliedlyrepealedSection4ofP.D.No.1606,asamendedbyP.D.No.1861,asregardsthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanovermembersofthePNP.First,theargumentisbasedonthefaultyassumptionthattheSandiganbayan,beingaspecialcourt,isnotaregularcourtwithin thecontemplationofSection46.Second,bothprovisionsarenot irreconcilableandthepresumptionagainstanimpliedrepealhasnotbeenovercome.Impliedrepealmaybeindulgedinonlyifthetwo laws are inconsistent, or the former law must be repugnant as to be irreconcilable with the latter law.Necessarilythen,anattemptmustbemadetoharmonizethetwolaws.InValeravs.Tuason,43thisCourtstated:

Oneofthewellestablishedrulesofstatutoryconstructionenjoinsthatendeavorshouldbemadetoharmonizetheprovisionsofalaworoftwolawssothateachshallbeeffective.Inorderthatonelawmayoperatetorepealanotherlaw,thetwolawsmustactuallybeinconsistent.Theformermustbesorepugnantastobeirreconciliable[sic]withthelatteract.(U.S.vs.Palacios,33Phil.,208).Merelybecausealaterenactmentmayrelatetothesamesubjectmatterasthatofanearlierstatuteisnotofitselfsufficienttocauseanimpliedrepealofthelatter,sincethenewlawmaybecumulativeoracontinuationoftheoldone.(StatutoryConstruction,Crawford,p.634).

InGordonvs.Veridiano,44 thisCourt,speaking throughMr.Justice IsaganiA.Cruz,emphasized the taskofcourts toreconcileandharmonizelaws:

Courtsofjustice,whenconfrontedwithapparentlyconflictingstatutes,shouldendeavortoreconcilethesameinsteadofdeclaringoutrighttheinvalidityofoneasagainsttheother.Suchalacrityshouldbeavoided.Thewisepolicyisforthejudgetoharmonizethemifthisispossible,bearinginmindthattheyareequallythehandiworkofthesamelegislature,andsogiveeffecttobothwhileatthesametimealsoaccordingduerespecttoacoordinatedepartmentofthegovernment.

Indeed,ithasbeenappropriatelysaid:

Thepresumptionagainstimpliedrepealsisclassicallyfoundeduponthedoctrinethatthelegislatureispresumedtoenvisionthewholebodyofthelawwhenitenactsnewlegislation,and,therefore,ifarepeal of the prior law is intended, expressly to designate the offending provisions rather than toleave the repeal to arise by necessary implication from the later enactment. Still more basic,however, is the assumption that existing statutory and common law, as well as ancient law, isrepresentative of popular will. As traditional and customary rules, the presumption is against theiralterationof repeal.Thepresumptionhasbeensaid tohavespecialapplication to importantpublicstatutesoflongstanding.45

ItcanthusbereasonablypresumedthatintheenactmentofR.A.No.6975,Congresshadthewholebodyofthelaw inmindand, forconsistency,coherence,andharmony, took intoaccount theprovisionsof theConstitutionregarding theSandiganbayan, the lawcreating it,and theamendments thereto relative to its jurisdiction.Sinceunderthelaw,theSandiganbayanisaspecialantigraftcourtwithexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionover(a)violationsofR.A.No.3019,R.A.No.1379,andChapter II,Section2,TitleVIIof theRevisedPenalCodeand (b)otheroffenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees (including those in governmentowned orcontrolled corporations) in relation to their office where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prisioncorreccionalor imprisonment for six years, or a fine of P6,000.00, and sincemembers of the PNP are publicofficers or employees, 46 Congress can be logically presumed to have read into Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 theconstitutional andstatutoryprovisions regarding theSandiganbayan.Thealleged inconsistency seenbypetitioner is nonexistent for, on the contrary, the twoprovisions canwell go togetherwith full andunhamperedeffect to bothandwithoutdoingviolence toeither, therebygivingspirit to themaxim, interpretareet concordare legibusest optimus interpretandioreverystatutemustbesoconstruedandharmonizedwithotherstatutesastoformauniformsystemofjurisprudence.47Asharmonized, the conclusion is inevitable thatmembers of thePNP, as public officers and employees, are subject to thejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanwithrespectto(a)violationsofR.A.No.3019,asamended,RepublicActNo.1379,andChapterII,Section2,TitleVIIoftheRevisedPenalCode,and(b)otheroffensesorfeloniescommittedbytheminrelationtotheirofficewherethepenaltyprescribedbylawishigherthanprisioncorreccionalorimprisonmentofsixyears,orafineofP6,000.00.AllotheroffensescommittedbythemarecognizablebytheappropriatecourtswithinthejudicialsystemsuchastheRegionalTrialCourts,MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts.

Thatthepublicofficersoremployeescommittedthecrimeinrelationtotheirofficemust,however,beallegedintheinformationfortheSandiganbayantohavejurisdictionoveracaseunderSection4(a)(2).48Thisallegationisnecessarybecauseoftheunbendingrulethatjurisdictionisdeterminedbytheallegationsoftheinformation.49

Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtdismissedCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224onthegroundthatsincethepenaltyprescribed for thecrimechargedwhich ishomicideishigher thanprisioncorreccional,50 then pursuant toDelosovs.Domingo,51itistheSandiganbayanwhichhasjurisdictionoverthecase.Inordertoavoidamisapprehensionof

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 9/12

the ruling inDeloso, which was based on P.D. No. 1606 alone, it must be stressed that we had unequivocally ruled inAguinaldo vs. Domagas 52 that for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses or feloniescommittedbypublicofficersoremployees,underSection4(a)(2)ofP.D.No.1606,asamendedbyP.D.No. 1861, it is not enough that the penalty prescribed therefor is higher thanprisioncorreccional or imprisonment for sixyears,orafineofP6,000.00 it isalsonecessarythatsuchoffensesor felonieswerecommitted in relation to theiroffice.Wethenconcluded:

Evenbeforeconsideringthepenaltyprescribedbylawfortheoffensecharged,itisthusessentialtodetermine whether that offense was committed or alleged to have been committed by the publicofficersandemployeesinrelationtotheiroffices.

IntherecentcaseofSanchezvs.Demetriou,53wereiteratedourrulingontherequirementthattheoffensesorfeloniescoveredbySection4(a)(2)ofP.D.No.1606,asamendedbyP.D.No.1861,havetobecommittedbypublicofficersandemployeesinrelationtotheirofficeandlikewiseelucidatedonthemeaningofoffensescommittedinrelationtotheirofficebyreiteratingtheprincipleinMontillavs.Hilario54thatanoffensemaybeconsideredascommittedinrelationtotheofficeif"theoffensecannotexistwithouttheoffice,"orthat"theofficemustbeaconstituentelementofthecrimesas...definedandpunished inChapterTwo toSix,TitleSeven,of theRevisedPenalCode,"and theprinciple inPeoplevs.Montejo55that the offense must be intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetuated while he was in theperformance, though improperor irregular,ofhisofficial functions.Further,we intimated that the fact that theoffensewascommittedinrelationtotheofficemustbeallegedintheinformation.

Justrecently,inNatividadvs.Felix,56weexplicitlydeclaredthatwehadreexaminedtheDelosocase inAguinaldoandinSanchezand reiterated the requisites foranoffenseunderSection4(a) (2)ofP.D.No.1606,asamendedbyP.D.No.1861,tofallunderthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayan.

In the light then of the foregoing, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City would be without jurisdiction overCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224 if the information thereinwouldshow that theoffenseofhomicidechargedwascommittedbytheaccused(privaterespondent)inrelationtohisoffice.Theinformationhasfailedtodoso.Thepleadingsof theparties areof little help.Wecanonly speculate therefrom that the crime chargedmight havebeen committedwhile the private respondent was in the pursuit of hismission. Under the subheading in thepetitionentitled"RelevantAntecedents,"thepetitionermerelystates:

1.OnJuly31,1991,privaterespondent...thenamemberofthePNPNCRassignedtotheCentralPolice District Command Station 2, based in Novaliches, Quezon City, was dispatched by hisCommandingOfficer toDumalayStreet inNovaliches to checkonacomplaint regardingapersoncreatingtroubleintheplace.WhileinNovaliches,privaterespondentshotRomeoSadangtodeath.

Thereisnoindicationatallthatthetroublemakerwasthevictimandthathewasshotbytheprivaterespondentin thecourseof the latter'smission.Ontheotherhand, theprivaterespondentasserts inhisComment thathe"shotRomeoSadangintheperformanceofalawfuldutyandinlawfuldefenseofhislife."57PetitionerignoredthisclaiminitsReplytotheComment.ThisclaimisananticipatorydefenseyettobeprovedanditsassertionintheCommentdoesnotcure thedeficiency,pointedoutearlier,of the information. Itwouldappear tous thatwithrespect to the issueofjurisdiction, thepartiesonly took intoaccount theprescribedpenalty, relyinguponDelosovs.Domingo, for which reasonthey did not consider important and relevant the issue of whether the offense charged was committed by the privaterespondentinrelationtohisoffice.Butasstatedearlier,Delosovs.DomingowasmodifiedbyAguinaldovs.Domagas.

ThedismissalthenofCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224solelyonthebasisofDelosovs.Domingowaserroneous.InthelightofAguinaldoandSanchez,andconsideringtheabsenceofanyallegationintheinformationthattheoffensewas committed by private respondent in relation to his office, it would even appear that theRTC hasexclusivejurisdictionoverthecase.However,itmayyetbetruethatthecrimeofhomicidechargedthereinwascommitted by the private respondent in relation to his office, which fact, however, was not alleged in theinformationprobablybecauseDelosovs.Domingodidnot requiresuchanallegation. Inviewof thiseventualityandthespecialcircumstancesofthiscase,andtoavoidfurtherdelay,ifnotconfusion,weshalldirectthecourtaquotoconductapreliminaryhearinginthiscasetodeterminewhetherthecrimechargedinCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224wascommittedbytheprivaterespondentinrelationtohisoffice.Ifitbedeterminedintheaffirmative,thenitshallorderthetransferofthecasetotheSandiganbayanwhichshallforthwithdocketandproceedwiththecaseasifthesamewereoriginallyfiledwithit.Otherwise,thecourtaquoshallsetasidethechallengedorders,proceedwiththetrialofthecase,andrenderjudgmentthereon.

Henceforth,anyofficerauthorizedtoconductapreliminaryinvestigation58whoisinvestigatinganoffenseorfelonycommittedbyapublicofficeroremployee(includingamemberofthePNP)wherethepenaltyprescribedbylawishigherthanprisioncorreccionalor imprisonmentforsixyears,orafineofP6,000.00,mustdetermineifthecrimewascommittedbytherespondentinrelationtohisoffice.Ifitwas,theinvestigatingofficer shall forthwith inform the Office of the Ombudsman whichmay either (a) take over the investigation of the casepursuant toSection15(1)ofR.A.No.6770,59or (b)deputizeaprosecutor toactasspecial investigatororprosecutor toassist in the investigation and prosecution of the case pursuant to Section 31 thereof. 60 If the investigating officer

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 10/12

determines that thecrimewasnot committedby the respondent in relation tohisoffice,heshall then file the informationwiththepropercourt.

Inthelightoftheforegoing,furtherdiscussionontheothercollateralissuesraisedhasbecomeunnecessary.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby renderedORDERING the respondent Judge to conduct, within fifteen (15)daysfromreceiptofacopyofthisDecision,apreliminaryhearinginCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224todeterminewhetherthecrimechargedwascommittedbytheprivaterespondentinrelationtohisoffice,and

(1) Ifhedetermines that thecrimechargedwascommittedby theprivaterespondent inrelation tohis office, DIRECTING the respondent Judge to forthwith transmit the records of the case to theSandiganbayanwhichshalldocketandproceedwiththecaseasifthesamewereoriginallyfiledwithitor

(2)Ifhedeterminesotherwise,DIRECTINGhimtosetasidethechallengedOrdersof24September1992 and 7October 1992, to proceedwith the hearing ofCriminalCaseNo.Q9123224, and torenderjudgmentthereon.

Nopronouncementastocosts.

Soordered.

Narvasa,C.J.,Cruz,Feliciano,Padilla,Bidin,Regalado,Romero,Nocon,Bellosillo,Melo,Quiason,Puno,VitugandKapunan,JJ.,concur.

#Footnotes

1Entitled"AnActEstablishingthePhilippineNationalPoliceUnderaReorganizedDepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment,andforOtherPurposes,"otherwiseknownastheDepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernmentActof1990.

2Annex"A"ofPetitionRollo,1718.

3Annex"B"ofPetitionRollo,19.

4Annex"C"ofPetitionRollo,2021.

5Annex"D"ofPetitionRollo,2223.

6QuotedinMemorandumCircularNo.10oftheDOJ,dated19August1991.

7Annex"E"ofPetitionRollo,2728.

8Rollo,3033.

9Annex"E"oftheMotionForLeavetoInterveneAndToFileCommentId.,4445.

10Rollo4664.

11Id.,68.

12Id.,697096112.

13Id.,126132.

14Section5,ArticleXIII,1973ConstitutionSection4ArticleXI,1987Constitution.

15Entitled"AnActEstablishingthePhilippineNationalPoliceUndertheAdministrationandControloftheNationalPoliceCommission."ThisbillwasrecommendedbytheCommitteeonPublicOrderandSecurityoftheHouseofRepresentativesinCommitteeReportNo.535,whichsubstitutedforseveralHouseBillsincludingthecertifiedbillentitled"AnActEstablishingthePhilippineNationalPolice,CreatingtheNationalPoliceCommission,andforOtherPurposes(JournalandRecordoftheHouseofRepresentatives,vol.7,401412).

16Entitled"AnActCreatingaDepartmentoftheInterior,AbolishingforthePurposetheDepartmentofLocalGovernment,thePhilippineConstabularyandtheNationalPoliceCommissionandforOther

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 11/12

Purposes."

17JournalandRecordoftheHouseofRepresentative,vol.7,413.

18Id.,414.

19Section12,ArticleXV.

20P.D.Nos.421,482,531,585,and641.

21Itprovided:"WheneverinthejudgmentofthePresident(PrimeMinister),thereexistsagraveemergencyorathreatorimminencethereof,orwhenevertheinterimBatasangPambansaortheregularNationalAssemblyfailsorisunabletoactadequatelyonanymatterforanyreasonthatinhisjudgmentrequiresimmediateaction,hemay,inordertomeettheexigency,issuethenecessarydecrees,orders,orlettersofinstructions,whichshallformpartofthelawoftheland."

22Reflect,forinstance,ontheprovisionsof(a)theBillofRightsdirectingthatonlyaJudgemayissueasearchwarrantorwarrantofarrestprohibitingsecretdetentionplaces,solitary,incommunicadoorotherformsofdetentionprohibitingdetentionsolelybyreasonofone'spoliticalbeliefsandaspirations:(b)theArticleontheExecutiveDepartmentlimitingtheperiodofsuspensionofawritofhabeascorpusortheproclamationofmartiallawallowingCongresstorevokesuchsuspensionorproclamation,orextendthesameupontheinitiativeofthePresidentauthorizingtheSupremeCourt,inanappropriateproceedingfiledbyanycitizen,toreviewthesufficiencyofthefactualbasisofsuchsuspensionorproclamationandlimitingtheeffectsofastateofmartiallawand(c)theArticleonGeneralProvisionsprohibitingtheappointmentordesignationofanymemberofthearmedforcesintheactiveservicetoanycivilianpositioninthegovernmentincludinggovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporationsoranyoftheirsubsidiaries,andlimitingthetourofdutyoftheChiefofStaffofthearmedforces.

23TSN,BicameralConferenceCommitteeonNationalDefense,18October1990,1.

24JournalandRecordoftheHouseofRepresentatives,vol.7,410.

25Id.,311312.

26JournalandRecordoftheHouseofRepresentative,vol.7,312.

27TranscriptoftheCommitteeMeeting(Alavazo)of15May1990at9:16p.m.,46(emphasisadded).

28ReconciliationofHouseBillNo.23614andSenateBillNo.463.

29Olaguervs.MilitaryCommissionNo.34,150SCRA144[1987]Magnovs.DeVilla,199SCRA663[1991].

30206SCRA821[1992].

31Id.at825826(emphasisadded).

32Section1,ArticleVIII,1987Constitution.

33ExecutiveOrderNo.292.

34Effectiveon11June1978.

35SaidSectionprovides:"TheBatasangPambansashallcreateaspecialcourt,tobeknownasSandiganbayan,whichshallhavejurisdictionovercriminalandcivilcasesinvolvinggraftandcorruptpracticesandsuchotheroffensecommittedbypublicofficersandemployees,includingthoseingovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations,inrelationtotheirofficeasmaybedeterminedbylaw."Section4,ArticleXIofthe1987Constitutionprovides:"ThepresentantigraftcourtknownastheSandiganbayanshallcontinuetofunctionandexerciseitsjurisdictionasnoworhereaftermaybeprovidedbylaw."

36Effectiveon10December1978.

37Effectiveon14January1983.

38Effectiveon23March1983.

7/25/2015 G.R.No.L108208

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/mar1994/gr_l_108208_1994.html 12/12

39BLACK'SLAWDICTIONARY1397(6thed.,1990).

40Id.at682.

41Id.at1285.

42ROGET'STHESAURUSOFENGLISHWORDSANDPHRASES28(1990ed.).

4380Phil.823,827[1948].

44167SCRA51,5859[1988].

451AC.DALLASSANDS,STATUTESANDSTATUTORYCONSTRUCTION23.10(4thed.,1972).

46Seedefinitionofpublicofficeroremployee,Section2(14)and(15),IntroductoryProvisions,AdministrationCodeof1987.

47RUBENE.AGPALO,STATUTORYCONSTRUCTION192(2ded.,1990).

48SeeAguinaldovs.Domagas,supra,atfootnoteno.45.

49Peoplevs.Ocaya,83SCRA218[1978].Seealso,Abadvs.CFIofPangasinan,206SCRA567[1992]forthesimilarruleincivilcases.

50Thepenaltyforhomicideisreclusiontemporalwhosedurationisfromtwelveyearsandonedaytotwentyyears(Article249,(inrelationto)Article27,RevisedPenalCode.)

51191SCRA545[1990].

52G.R.No.98452,enbancResolution,26September1991.

53G.R.Nos.11177177,9November1993.

5490Phil.49[1951].

55108Phil.613[1960].

56G.R.No.111616,4February1994.

57Rollo,96.Thiswasrestatedinthepetitioner'sMemorandum.

58Section2,Rule112,RulesofCourt.

59TheOmbudsmanActof1989.

60ItmustbeemphasizedthattheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanhasprimary(notexclusive)jurisdictionovercasescognizablebytheSandiganbayan(Section15[1]).SeeCojuangcovs.PCGG,190SCRA226[1990]Aguinaldovs.Domagas,supra.Sanchezvs.Demetriou,supra.Natividadvs.Felix,supra.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation