BALABA vs. PEOPLE Facts: - Accused Irenorio Balaba, was the then assistant Municipal Treasurer of Guidulman, Bohol.

- He was charged with Mal ersation of Funds and found guilt! of the said offense b! the "T# of $oa!, Bohol on %ec. &, '(('. - Then, on )an. *+, '((,, Balaba filed his -otice of Appeal to the #A. - The #A, howe er, dismissed the appeal and declared that it had no .urisdiction to act on the appeal because the /andiganba!an has e0clusi e appellate .urisdiction o er the case. Issues: *. 12- the #A erred in dismissing Balaba3s appeal instead of certif!ing the case to the proper court. -4. '. 12- the /B has the e0clusi e appellate .urisdiction o er the case. 56/. "uling: *. The #A did not err. - In the case of Melencion . /B, the /# ruled that, an error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. Howe er, the correction in designating the proper court should be made within the *78da! period to appeal. 000. 4therwise, the second paragraph of /ec. ', "ule 7( of the "ules of #ourt would appl!, which states that, 9An appeal erroneousl! ta:en to the #A shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.; '. The /B shall e0ercise e0clusi e appellate .urisdiction o er final .udgments, resolutions or orders of the "T#s whether in the e0ercise of their own original .urisdiction or of their appellate .urisdiction.

ESTEBAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: - <etitioner )udge "ogelio 6steban, a public officer, being the <residing )udge of Br. * of the MT# in #abanatuan, was charged for the iolation of "A -o. =>== or the Anti8/e0ual Harassment $aw and for acts of lasci iousness before the /andiganba!an. Then, the <etitioner filed a motion to ?uash the charges on the ground that the /andiganba!an has no .urisdiction o er the crimes charged considering that the! were not committed in relation to his office as a .udge. - The /andiganba!an denied petitioner3s motion to ?uash, holding that 9the act of appro ing or indorsing the permanent appointment of complaining witness was certainl! a function of the office.; Issue: 14- the /andiganba!an has .urisdiction o er #riminal #ases for acts of lasci iousness filed against <etitioner. 56/. "uling: - In the case of <eople . Monte.o, the /# ruled that an offense is said to ha e been committed in relation to the office if the offense is 9intimatel! connected; with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. - This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. This is in accordance with the rule that the factor that characteri@es the charge is the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or Information. - Thus, where the information is wanting in specific a erments to show the intimate relationship2connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official functions, the /B has no .urisdiction o er the case. - According to a /# #ircular, petitioner, as the presiding .udge of the MT##, he is ested with the power to recommend the appointment of the ictim /imba.on as boo:binder. As alleged in the Amended Informations, she was constrained to approach petitioner as she needed his recommendation. But he imposed a condition before e0tending such recommendation A be his gf and must report to his office for a :iss. o There can be no doubt that petitioner used his official position in committing the acts complained of. - Though it is true that public office is not an element of the crime of acts of lasci iousness under Art. ,,B of the "<#, howe er, he could not ha e committed the crimes charged were it not for the fact that as

the <residing )udge of the MT##, he has the authorit! to recommend the appointment of /imba.on as boo:binder. In other words, the crimed allegedl! are intimatel! committed with his office.

LLORENTE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: - <etitioner $lorente, a municipal ma!or of /indangan, Hamboanga, was charged before the /andiganba!an with iolation of /ec. ,CeD of "A ,(*& or the Anti8Graft and #orrupt <ractices Act. - <ending the case, #ongress enacted "A =&=7, limiting the .urisdiction of the /andiganba!an. - <etitioner $lorente, then, contended that b! irtue of "A =&=7, the /andiganba!an lost .urisdiction o er his case, as he his salar! is less than that corresponding to Grade '=. Issue: 1hether the /andiganba!an was di ested of .urisdiction o er iolations of "A -o. ,(*&, as amended, against municipal ma!ors. Held: -o. - To determine whether the official is within the e0clusi e .urisdiction of the /andiganba!an, reference should be made to "A B=7> and the Inde0 of 4ccupational /er ices, position Titles, and /alar! Grades. - An official3s grade is not a matter of proof, but a matter of law which the court must ta:e .udicial notice. - Moreo er, under /ec. +++CdD of the $G# and the *&>& and *&&= ersions of the Inde0 of 4ccupational /er ices, <osition Titles and /alar! Grades list the municipal ma!or is classified under /alar! Grade '=. - Thus, the case against <etitioner $lorente is within the e0clusi e .urisdiction of the /andiganba!an.

GEDUSPAN VS PEOPLE Facts: - 4n )ul! **, '((', an information was filed against petitioner Maril!n #. Geduspan and %r. 6 angeline #. Farahmand, <hilippine Health Insurance #orporation C<hilhealthD "egional Manager2%irector and #hairman of the Board of %irectors of Tiong Bi Medical #enter, Tiong Bi, Inc., respecti el! for iolation of the Anti8Graft and #orrupt <ractices Act. - Both accused filed a .oint motion to ?uash dated )ul! '&, '((' contending that the respondent /andiganba!an had no .urisdiction o er them considering that the principal accused Geduspan was a "egional %irector of <hilhealth, "egion EI, a position classified under salar! grade 'B. I//F6: %oes the /andiganba!an ha e .urisdiction o er the caseG "F$I-G: 5es. The records show that, although Geduspan is a %irector of "egion EI of the <hilhealth, she is not occup!ing the position of "egional %irector but that of %epartment Manager A. It is petitioner3s appointment paper and the notice of salar! ad.ustment that determine the classification of her position, that is, %epartment Manager A of <hilhealth. The position of manager in a go ernment8owned or controlled corporation, as in the case of <hilhealth, is within the .urisdiction of respondent court. It is the position that petitioner holds, not her salar! grade, that determines the .urisdiction of the /andiganba!an. Hence, respondent court is ested with .urisdiction o er petitioner together with Farahmand, a pri ate indi idual charged together with her.

INDING vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: - <etitioner "icardo Inding, a member of the /angguniang <anglungsod of %apitan was charged with the iolation of /ec ,CeD of "A -o. ,(*&. - Inding, then, filed a motion for the dismissal of the case for lac: of .urisdiction o er the officers charged or, in the alternati e, for the referral of the case either to the "T# or the MT#. - He alleged that under Administrati e 4rder -o. '=(, he is a member of the /angguniang <anlungsod of %apitan #it! with /alar! grade '7. - That under "A -o. =&=7, which amended <% -o. *B(B, the /B e0ercises original .urisdiction to tr! cases in ol ing crimes committed b! local go ernment officials that occup! positions with /G '= or higher and also, under /ec. ', "A -o. =&=7, the "T#, not the /B, has original .urisdiction o er the crime charged against him. - /andiganba!an denied the motion of the <etitioner. - 4n appeal to the /#, petitioner contended that, at the time the offense charged was allegedl! committed, he was occup!ing the position of /angguniang <anlungsod Member * with /G '7. Issue: 1hether the /andiganba!an has original .urisdiction o er crime charged against the petitioner, a member of the /angguniang <anlungsod of %apitan. "uling: 56/. For purposes of determining which of the two laws, "A -o. =&=7 or "A -o. >'+&, applies in the present case, the rea:oning period is the time the commission of the offense. Generall!, the .urisdiction of a court is to be determined b! the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime. 60ceptions to the rule are the said laws as it e0pressl! states that to determine the .urisdiction of the /B in cases in ol ing iolations of the "A -o. ,(*&, the rec:oning period is the time of the commission of the offense. In this case, the crime charged was from )an, *&&= to Aug, *&&=. Thus, the applicable law is "A -o. =&=7. There is, then, no dispute that the petitioner is a member of the sangguniang panlungsod of %apitan #it! and he is charged with iolation of /ec. ,CeD of "A -o. ,(*&. Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod are specificall! included as among those within the original .urisdiction of the /andiganba!an in -

/ection + a.C*D CbD of <.%. -o. *B(B, as amended b! /ection ' of "ep. Act -o. =&=7, or e en /ection + of "ep. Act -o. >'+& for that matter. The /andiganba!an, therefore, has original .urisdiction o er the petitioner3s case doc:eted as #riminal #ase -o. '7**B. !" P#$l. %&'

PEOPLE vs. MONTEJO

FA#T/: - This is a case for murder filed against the former Ma!or $ero! Brown of Basilan #it! together with some Basilan policeman. - Brown ordered his men to arrest the suspect and he was interrogated. It is in the course of the in estigation or interrogation that the! committed the crime of murder. I//F6: 1as the crime of murder committed in relation to his officeG H6$%: - 5es. In other words, if the! were not public officers the! would not ha e succeeded in committing the crime. - Although public office is not an element of the crime of murder in abstract, as committed b! the main respondents herein, according to the amended information, the offense therein charged is intimatel! connected with their respecti e offices and was perpetrated while the! were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions. Indeed, the! had no personal moti e to commit the crime and the! would not ha ecommitted it had the! not held their aforesaid offices. - The co8defendants of respondent $ero! /. Brown, obe!ed his instructions because he was their superior officer, as Ma!or of Basilan #it!.; - 4f course, normall! when !ou sa! in relation to his officeI mga falsification or malversatonI !an, talagang :laro. That is the normal meaning. That is wh! in the *&&7 case of CUNANAN VS. ARCEO, '+' /#"A, the /# held that an offense ma! be considered as committed in relation to the accusedJs office if the offense cannot e0ist without the office such that the office is a constituent element of the crime.

SAN(HE) vs. DEMETRIOU '!* S(RA %'* FA#T/: - Ma!or /anche@ of #alauan was charged with rape and homicide for the deaths of Aileen /armenta and Allan Gome@. The! were charged before the "T#. - /anche@ ?uestioned the .urisdiction of the "T# that since he is an incumbent ma!or at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, his case should be tried before the /andiganba!an. I//F6: 1hether or not the "T# has .urisdiction o er the case. H6$%: - 5es. The case should be tried b! the "T# and not /andiganba!an. The case of /anche@ was not considered in relation to their office. - 9There is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and /anche@3 office as municipal ma!or because public office is not an essential element of the crime charged. - The offense can stand independentl! of the office. Moreo er, it is not e en alleged in the information that the commission of the crime charged was intimatel! connected with the performance of /anche@3 official functions to ma:e it fall under the e0ception laid down in <eople s. Monte.o.; - 9In that case of <eople s. Monte.o, a cit! ma!or and se eral detecti es were charged with murder for the death of a suspect as a result of a Kthird degree3 in estigation held at a police substation. - The /upreme #ourt held that e en if their position was not an essential ingredient of the offense, there was ne ertheless an intimate connection between the office and the offense, as alleged in the information, that brought it within the definition of an offense Kcommitted in relation to the public office.3 - Indeed, the! had no personal moti e to commit the crime and the! would not ha e committed it had the! not held their aforesaid offices. - 91e ha e read the informations in the case at bar and find no allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to /anche@ was connected with the discharge of his functions as municipal ma!or or that there is an Kintimate connection3 between the offense and his office. - It follows that the said crime, being an ordinar! offense, is triable b! the regular courts and not the /andiganba!an.;

(ORPU) vs. TANODBAYAN A+,$l &- ."* FA(TS: - The accused here is a #omelec registrar who allowed the registration of oters outside of the registration da!. /o he committed a iolation of the 6lection #ode and he committed a crime in relation to his office. - For that,he was charged before the /andiganba!an under the *&=, #onstitution. -ow, he challenged the .urisdiction of the /andiganba!an to tr! the case and also the .urisdiction of the former Tanodba!an which is now the 4mbudsman. - Fnder the 6lection #ode, iolations of election code committed b! public officers in relation to their office are supposed to be tried b! the "T#. It is a direct pro ision in the code A "T# ehL And the preliminar! in estigation should be conducted b! the #omelec under the election code. - And of course the prosecution said: 9-oL Fnder the law, when the crime is committed b! a public officer in relation to his office, it should be the /andiganba!an, not the regular courts.; - <ero sabi ng accused: 9Fnder the election code, it should be the "T#L; -ga!on, sino nga!on mag8pre ail d!anG HELD: - The election code pre ails because there is a specific pro ision which is: crimes under the election code. - 1hereas the pro isions of the /andiganba!an is broader: crimes committed b !ublic officers in relation to their dut . - That applies to public officers in general. /o the specific pro ision pre ails o er the general pro ision.

GAR(IA vs. MIRO Facts: - )udge Garcia, the then <residing )udge of M#T# of #alatraa8Tobosa, -egros 4ccidental was charged with the crime of "ec:less Imprudence resulting to Homicide before the M#T# of #alatra a8 Tobosa. - <etitioner )udge, then, filed a Motion to Muash the Information on the ground that the court tr!ing the case had no .urisdiction o er the offense charged against him. - He alleged that, as a .udge, the case against him should ha e been filed before the /upreme #ourt. Issue/ 1hether the /# has original .urisdiction o er the crime charged against )udge Garcia. "uling: -o. - 1hile it is true that the #onstitution ested the /# with the tas: to o ersee the .udges and court personnel and ta:e the proper administrati e action against them if the! commit an! iolation of the laws of the land, this power is limited onl! to administrati e super ision and when the offense committed b! the respondent )udge or #ourt personnel is in relation to the performance of his official functions. - In this case, the criminal case filed against )udge Garcia was in no wa! related to the performance of his duties as a )udge. - The case filed against )udge Garcia before the M#T# is a criminal case under its own .urisdiction as prescribed b! law and not an administrati e case. - To be sure, trial courts retain .urisdiction o er the criminal aspect of offenses committed b! .udges of the lower court.

MIA0UE VS. JUDGE PATAG Facts: - 4n )anuar!, '(((, fi e Informations for libel were filed in the "T# of Iloilo against <etitioner Miague and fi e others. - Howe er, these Informations were ?uashed for lac: of .urisdiction o er the offenses charged as the said Informations failed to allege either that pri ate complainant Aragona actuall! held office in Iloilo at the commission of the offense or that the alleged remar:s were printed or first published in Iloilo #it!. - Then, fi e !ears later or on )une, '((7, new Informations were filed incorporating now the allegation that were missing in the pre ious Informations. - /aid new Informations were li:ewise signed and b! Asst. <rosecutor Maranon. - Fpon :nowing this, <etitioner Mia?ue filed a Motion alleging that the new Informations were filed b! the Iloilo <ro incial <rosector3s 4ffice and not the Iloilo #it! <rosecutor3s 4ffice which has the proper .urisdiction o er the sub.ect matter of the case. Issue: 12- the Iloilo <ro incial <rosector3s 4ffice has the authorit! to file and sign the new Informations against <etitioner Mia?ue. -4. "uling: - Fnder /ec. ** CbD of <% *'=7, <ro incial Fiscals or #it! Fiscals shall in estigate and2or cause to be in estigated all charges or crimes, misdemeanors and iolations all penal laws and ordinances within their respecti e .urisdictions and ha e the necessar! information or complaint prepared or made against the persons accused. - In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the alleged acts of libel were committed in Iloilo #it!. - <ursuant to the #harter of the #it! of Iloilo, the #it! Fiscal, now called the #it! <rosecutor shall ha e charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and iolation of cit! ordinances, in the #FI Cnow "T#D and in the MT# of the cit!, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to criminal prosecutions en.oined b! law upon pro incial fiscals. - Therefore, the authorit! to sign and file the new Informations should ha e been properl! lodged with the Iloilo #it! <rosecutor3s 4ffice and not with the Iloilo <ro incial <rosecutor3s 4ffice. - In a .urisprudence C<p . Hon. GarfinD the /# ruled that: It is a alid information signed b! a competent officer which, among other re?uisites, confers .urisdiction on the court o er the person of the -

accused. An infirmit! in the Information, such as lac: of authorit! of the officer signing it, cannot be cured b! silence, ac?uiescence, or e en b! e0press consent. Hence, the petition of <etitioner Mia?ue was granted /# dismissed the case without pre.udice to the filing of new Informations b! an authori@ed officer.

PEOPLE vs. ARTURO DU(A Facts: - Arturo %uca, together with his mother #ecilia %uca, were charged with the crime of Falsification of 4fficial %ocument defined and penali@ed under Art. *=', in relation with Art. *=' of the "<# before the M#T# of /an Fabian8/an )acinto, <angasinan. - Fpon arraignment, both accused pleaded 9not guilt!;. - M#T# con icted the accused of the crimes charged. "T# affirmed M#T#3s decision. - Howe er, on appeal to the #A, the latter court ac?uitted the accused. - Feeling aggrie ed, <etitioner filed a petition before the /#. It argued that the prosecution was denied due process when the #A resol ed the respondent3s appeal without notif!ing the <eople of the <hilippines, through the /olicitor8General C/ol8GenD, of the pendenc! of the appeal in the #A and without re?uiring the /ol8Gen to file his comment. Thus, the #A gra el! abused its authorit! when it acted on respondent3s appeal without affording the prosecution the opportunit! to be heard. - 4n the other hand, the respondent argued that the prosecution was properl! represented b! the 4ffice of the <ro incial <rosecutor and a pri ate prosecutor who handled the presentation of e idence under the control and super ision of the <ro incial <rosecutor. /ince the control and super ision conferred on the pri ate prosecutor b! the <ro incial <rosecutor had not been withdrawn, the /ol8Gen could not claim that the prosecution was not afforded a chance to be heard in the #A. Issue: 12- respondent %uca was correct. -4. "uling: - The authorit! to represent the /tate in appeals of criminal cases before the #A and /# is solel! ested in the 4ffice of the /olicitor8General C4/GD. - Fnder /ec. 7, "ule **( of the "ules of #ourt, all criminal actions commenced b! complaint or Information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The fiscal represents the <eople of

the <hilippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts and the regional trial courts. Howe er, when such criminal actions are brought to the #ourt of Appeals or this #ourt, it is the /olicitor General who must represent the <eople of the <hilippines not the fiscal. The 4/G is the law office of the Go ernment authori@ed b! law to represent the Go 3t or the <eople of the <hilippines before the /# and before the #A in all criminal proceedings, or before an! court, tribunal, bod!, or commission in an! matter, action or proceeding which, in the opinion of the /ol8Gen, affects the welfare of the people as the ends of .ustice ma! re?uire. The /ol8Gen is regarded as the appellate counsel of the <eople of the <hilippines in criminal cases, and as such, should ha e been gi en the opportunit! to be heard on behalf of the <eople. In this case, howe er, the record showed that the #A failed to re?uire the /ol8Gen to file his comment on the petition of %uca This failure of the #A to re?uire the /ol8Gen to file his #omment depri ed the prosecution of a fair opportunit! to prosecute and pro e its case. 1here there is iolation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their .urisdiction and where denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered is oid for lac: of .urisdiction. Hence, the decision of the #A ac?uitting %uca without gi ing the /ol8 Gen the chance to file his comment on the petition for re iew clearl! depri ed the /tate of its right to refute the material allegation of the said petition filed before the #A. /# set aside the decision of the #A and remanded the case to the #A for further proceedings.