Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Antiporda Jr. v. Garchitoren

    Uploaded by

    Jasen
    The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a case against an accused mayor and others charged with kidnapping. While the initial information did not specify that the offense was office-related, the accused later argued to the Sandiganbayan that the regional trial court did not have jurisdiction and the crime was work-connected. By invoking the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the accused were estopped from later contesting its authority, even though no arrest warrant had been issued. The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Antiporda Jr. v. Garchitoren

    Uploaded by

    Jasen
    50 views1 page
    The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a case against an accused mayor and others charged with kidnapping. While the initial information did not specify that the offense was office-related, the accused later argued to the Sandiganbayan that the regional trial court did not have jurisdiction and the crime was work-connected. By invoking the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the accused were estopped from later contesting its authority, even though no arrest warrant had been issued. The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a case against an accused mayor and others charged with kidnapping. While the initial information did not specify that the offense was office-related, the accused later argued to the Sandiganbayan that the regional trial court did not have jurisdiction and the crime was work-connected. By invoking the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the accused were estopped from later contesting its authority, even though no arrest warrant had been issued. The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    50 views1 page

    Antiporda Jr. v. Garchitoren

    Uploaded by

    Jasen
    The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a case against an accused mayor and others charged with kidnapping. While the initial information did not specify that the offense was office-related, the accused later argued to the Sandiganbayan that the regional trial court did not have jurisdiction and the crime was work-connected. By invoking the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the accused were estopped from later contesting its authority, even though no arrest warrant had been issued. The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Criminal Procedure 2E

    TOPIC Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts -Sandiganbayan DATE 23 December 1999

    CASE TITLE Antiporda Jr. v. Garchitoren GR NO 133289

    DOCTRINE The voluntary appearance of the accused at the pre-suspension hearing amounted to his
    submission to the court’s jurisdiction even if no warrant of arrest has yet been issued
    FACTS Accused Mayor Licerio Antiporda and others were charged for the crime of kidnapping, the case was filed
    in the first division of Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, the Court ordered the prosecution to submit
    amended information,which was complied evenly and the new information contained the place
    wherethe victim was brought.

    The accused filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that a reinvestigation be conducted and the
    issuance of warrants of arrest be deferred but it was denied by the Ombudsman. The accused thereafter
    filed a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to hold in abeyance and/or recall warrant of arrest
    issued but the same was also denied. Subsequently, the accused filed a Motion to Quash Amended
    Information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, which was ignored for their continuous
    refusal to submit their selves to the Court and after their voluntary appearance which invested the
    Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over their persons, their motion for reconsideration was again denied.

    ISSUE/S Procedural
    1. WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case.
    RATIO Procedural
    1. Yes. The court is in accord with the petitioners when they contended that when they filed a
    motion to quash it was tantamount to a voluntary submission to the Court’s authority. They
    cite the case of Layosa vs. Rodriguez in support of their contention. For therein, it was ruled
    that the voluntary appearance of the accused at the pre-suspension hearing amounted to
    his submission to the court’s jurisdiction even if no warrant of arrest has yet been issued.

    The original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense
    committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the
    prosecution belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein. However,
    we hold that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the
    Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or
    reinvestigation dated June 10, 1997 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 said crime is work connected, x x x 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. We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case
    because of estoppel and it was thus vested with the authority to order the amendment of
    the Information.
    RULING WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSE

    NOTES

    You might also like