Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 254 views

    Sanchez v. Demetriou G.R. Nos. 111771-77

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    The petitioner argued that as a public official, his case should be tried by the Sandiganbayan rather than regular courts. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan only has jurisdiction over cases involving graft and corruption or offenses committed in relation to one's public office. Since rape and homicide are ordinary crimes and the petitioner's office was not essential to committing the offenses, the regular courts had jurisdiction rather than the Sandiganbayan.

    Copyright:

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

    Sanchez v. Demetriou G.R. Nos. 111771-77

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    254 views2 pages
    The petitioner argued that as a public official, his case should be tried by the Sandiganbayan rather than regular courts. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan only has jurisdiction over cases involving graft and corruption or offenses committed in relation to one's public office. Since rape and homicide are ordinary crimes and the petitioner's office was not essential to committing the offenses, the regular courts had jurisdiction rather than the Sandiganbayan.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner argued that as a public official, his case should be tried by the Sandiganbayan rather than regular courts. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan only has jurisdiction over cases involving graft and corruption or offenses committed in relation to one's public office. Since rape and homicide are ordinary crimes and the petitioner's office was not essential to committing the offenses, the regular courts had jurisdiction rather than the Sandiganbayan.

    Copyright:

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

    Sanchez v. Demetriou G.R. Nos. 111771-77

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    The petitioner argued that as a public official, his case should be tried by the Sandiganbayan rather than regular courts. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan only has jurisdiction over cases involving graft and corruption or offenses committed in relation to one's public office. Since rape and homicide are ordinary crimes and the petitioner's office was not essential to committing the offenses, the regular courts had jurisdiction rather than the Sandiganbayan.

    Copyright:

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

    ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ vs. The Honorable HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU G.R. Nos.

    111771-77, November 9,
    1993

    Fact: On July 28, 1993, the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of appropriate
    charges against several persons, including the petitioner, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen
    Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. On August 12, 1993, PNP Commander Rex Piad issued an
    “invitation” to the petitioner requesting him to appear for investigation at Camp Vicente Lim in
    Canlubang, Laguna. It was served on Sanchez in the morning of August 13,1993, and he was immediately
    taken to the said camp. At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio
    Centeno, and SPO III Vivencio Malabanan, who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal
    in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. The petitioner was then placed on “arrest status”
    and taken to the Department of Justice in Manila.

    The petitioner argued earlier that since most of the accused were incumbent public officials or
    employees at the time of the alleged commission of the crimes, the cases against them should come
    under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and not of the regular courts.

    Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the accused.

    Held: No, the crime of rape with homicide with which the petitioner stands charged obviously does not
    fall under paragraph (1), which deals with graft and corruption cases. Neither is it covered by paragraph
    (2) because it is not an offense committed in relation to the office of the petitioner. The relation
    between the crime and the office contemplated by the Constitution is, in our opinion, direct and not
    accidental. To fall into the intent of the Constitution, the relation has to be such that, in the legal sense,
    the offense cannot exist without the office. In other words, the office must be a constituent element of
    the crime as defined in the statute, such as, for instance, the crimes defined and punished in Chapter
    Two to Six, Title Seven, of the Revised Penal Code. Public office is not of the essence of murder. The
    taking of human life is either murder or homicide whether done by a private citizen or public servant,
    and the penalty is the same except when the perpetrator. being a public functionary took advantage of
    his office, as alleged in this case, in which event the penalty is increased.

    It is apparent from these allegations that, although public office is not an element of the crime of
    murder in abstract, as committed by the main respondents herein, according to the amended
    information, the offense therein charged is intimately connected with their respective offices and was
    perpetrated while they were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their official
    functions. Indeed they had no personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed
    it had they not held their aforesaid offices. The co-defendants of respondent Leroy S. Brown, obeyed his
    instructions because he was their superior officer, as Mayor of Basilan City. (Emphasis supplied).

    The SC find no allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to the petitioner was
    connected with the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor or that there is an “intimate
    connection” between the offense and his office. It follows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense,
    is triable by the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan.

    You might also like