Republic vs. Asuncion

Republic vs.
Asuncion
G.R. No. 108208. March 11, 1994
Facts:
 Private respondent, Alexander Dionisio, a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), was charged
with the crime of homicide in an information filed by Office of the City Prosecutor before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
 While trial was already in progress, the respondent Judge issued, motu proprio, an order requiring the
prosecution and the defense to comment on whether the Court should still proceed with the trial of the case.
 Thereafter, the respondent Judge, in his order, dismissed the case for refiling with the Sandiganbayan on
the ground that the Sandiganbayan, and not the Regional Trial Court, has jurisdiction over the case.
 The private prosecutor moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal, citing the opinion of the Secretary of
Justice that “crimes committed by PNP members are not cognizable by the Sandiganbayan” because
“[t]hey fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts” as provided in Section 46 of R.A. No.
6975 and “[t]he Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special court.” However, the respondent Judge
denied the motion.
 This Court still holds that the regular courts referred to in Sec. 46 of RA 6975 (An Act establishing the
Philippine National Police) includes the Sandiganbayan which has exclusive original jurisdiction to try
offenses on felonies committed by public officers in relation to their office, whether simple or complex
with other crimes where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional (Sec. 4, par. c, PD
1606).
 Petitioner maintains that the dismissal of the criminal case below “for refiling with the Sandiganbayan” was
erroneous because Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 vests the exclusive jurisdiction in criminal cases involving
PNP members only in the “regular courts” which excludes the Sandiganbayan since it is, constitutionally
and statutorily, a “special court” and not a regular court. Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition.

Issue:
I.
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan is included in the term regular courts.
Ruling:
Yes. The Sandiganbayan is a regular court and is thus included in the term regular courts.
Regular courts are those within the judicial department of the government, namely, the Supreme Court and
such lower courts as may be established by law. Per Section 16, Chapter 4, Book II of the Administrative Code of
1987, such lower courts “include the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial
Courts, Shari’a District Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,
and Shari’a Circuit Courts.”
Undoubtedly then, the Sandiganbayan is a regular court and is thus included in the term regular courts in
Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975.
Issue:
II.
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses committed by public officials
when the penalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision correccional.
Ruling:
No. For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive original jurisdiction, it is not enough that the penalty
prescribed therefor is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00, it is
also necessary that such offenses or felonies were committed in relation to their office.’
That the public officers or employees committed the crime in relation to their office must, however, be
alleged in the information for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over a case under Section 4(a)(2). This
allegation is necessary because of the unbending rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the
information.
In the instant case, the trial court dismissed case on the ground that since the penalty prescribed for the
crime charged—which is homicide—is higher than prision correccional, then pursuant to Deloso vs. Domingo, it is
the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the case. The Court held that the dismissal then of Criminal Case
solely on the basis of Deloso vs. Domingo was erroneous. The Court stressed based on their ruling in Aguinaldo vs.
Domagas, it is also necessary that such offenses or felonies were committed in relation to their office.
Dispositive Portion:
The Supreme Court rendered a judgment ORDERING the respondent Judge to conduct, within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of a copy of the Decision, a preliminary hearing in case to determine whether the crime charged was
committed by the private respondent in relation to his office.

Republic vs. Asuncion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic vs. Asuncion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic vs. Asuncion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic vs.

You might also like