Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    MANLOD - CONSTI2 - Binay Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    martinmanlod
    The Sandiganbayan ruled that: 1) It was not ousted of jurisdiction over cases filed against Mayor Binay and other officials even though similar cases were first filed in the RTC, since the RTC did not have proper jurisdiction under RA 7975. 2) The principle of estoppel did not apply because jurisdiction is determined by law rather than agreement of the parties. 3) Filing similar cases in multiple courts does not constitute double jeopardy or forum shopping, as the first court lacked jurisdiction and the proper remedy was to move to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MANLOD - CONSTI2 - Binay Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    martinmanlod
    106 views2 pages
    The Sandiganbayan ruled that: 1) It was not ousted of jurisdiction over cases filed against Mayor Binay and other officials even though similar cases were first filed in the RTC, since the RTC did not have proper jurisdiction under RA 7975. 2) The principle of estoppel did not apply because jurisdiction is determined by law rather than agreement of the parties. 3) Filing similar cases in multiple courts does not constitute double jeopardy or forum shopping, as the first court lacked jurisdiction and the proper remedy was to move to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    MANLOD_CONSTI2- Binay vs Sandiganbayan

    Original Title

    MANLOD_CONSTI2- Binay vs Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan ruled that: 1) It was not ousted of jurisdiction over cases filed against Mayor Binay and other officials even though similar cases were first filed in the RTC, since the RTC did not have proper jurisdiction under RA 7975. 2) The principle of estoppel did not apply because jurisdiction is determined by law rather than agreement of the parties. 3) Filing similar cases in multiple courts does not constitute double jeopardy or forum shopping, as the first court lacked jurisdiction and the proper remedy was to move to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    106 views2 pages

    MANLOD - CONSTI2 - Binay Vs Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    martinmanlod
    The Sandiganbayan ruled that: 1) It was not ousted of jurisdiction over cases filed against Mayor Binay and other officials even though similar cases were first filed in the RTC, since the RTC did not have proper jurisdiction under RA 7975. 2) The principle of estoppel did not apply because jurisdiction is determined by law rather than agreement of the parties. 3) Filing similar cases in multiple courts does not constitute double jeopardy or forum shopping, as the first court lacked jurisdiction and the proper remedy was to move to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BINAY VS SANDIGANBAYAN / 316 SCRA 65

    Dayle Martin D. Manlod

    FACTS

    G.R. Nos. 120681-83


    The Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan three separate
    informations against petitioner, Mayor Jejomar Binay, one for violation of Article 220
    of the Revised Penal Code (Illegal Use of Public Funds), and two for violation of
    Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (giving undue favor to private parties). The
    informations alleged that the acts constituting these crimes were committed in 1987
    during petitioner’s incumbency as Mayor of Makati, then a municipality of Metro
    Manila. Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the cases
    filed against him.

    G.R. No. 128136


    Petitioner Mario Magsaysay is the Mayor of the Municipality of San Pascual,
    Batangas.  Save for petitioner Vicente dela Rosa, all of Mayor Magsaysay’s co-
    petitioners are officials of the same municipality. Two complaints were raised against
    petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019 for overpaying
    Vicente de la Rosa of TDR Construction for the landscaping project of the San
    Pascual Central School which informations were filed before the RTC of Batangas
    City. While another complaint on the same matter was eventually filed before the
    Sandiganbayan. Petitioner moved to quash the Criminal Case filed before the
    Sandiganbayan on the grounds that the same complaints has already been filed with
    the RTC. The proceedings of both cases were suspended by the Sandiganbayan and
    the RTC pending resolution of the Binay case as to the jurisdiction of the
    Sandiganbayan.

    ISSUE

          In GR No. 128136, whether the filing of information with the RTC
    effectively ousted  the Sandiganbayan of its jurisdiction over the case and estopped
    the respondents from filing an information before the latter; and whether the filing of
    the information before the Sandiganbayan constitutes double jeopardy.
    RULING:

    The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan was not ousted of its jurisdiction even
    if the information was first filed in the RTC since the latter did not have jurisdiction in
    the first place as provided in R.A. 7975. Estoppel could not also be invoked because
    jurisdiction is determined by law and not by the consent or agreement of the parties.
    The court has previously ruled that a filing of a complaint with one court does not
    prevent the plaintiff from filing the same with the competent court. This does not
    amount to forum shopping since the only authority of the first court was to dismiss the
    case for lack of jurisdiction. By estoppel, it means that the party estopped consistently
    invoked the jurisdiction of the court and actively participated in the proceedings,
    impugning such jurisdiction only when faced with an adverse decision. Also, the
    filing of another complaint with the Sandiganbayan does not also amount to double
    jeopardy because there can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in
    a court that had no jurisdiction. The remedy should have been for the petitioner to
    move the quashal of information for lack of jurisdiction.

    You might also like