EN BANC

[G.R. No. 128096. January 20, 1999.]

PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN,

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA,
NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

ROMEO M. ACOP and FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., petitioners-intervenors.

Fortun Narvasa & Salazar for petitioner.

Chavez Laureta & Associates for petitioners-intervenors.
The Solicitor General for public respondents.
Free Legal Assistance Group for private respondents.

SYNOPSIS

This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by petitioner Panfilo M. Lacson and petitioners-intervenors Romeo
Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr. questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of Republic Act 8249 an Act which
further defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. They also seek to prevent the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with
the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They further argued that if
the case is tried before the Sandiganbayan, their right to procedural due process would violate as they could no longer
avail of the two-tiered appeal to the Sandiganbayan, which they acquired under RA 7975, before recourse to the Supreme
Court. TSEcAD
The Court ruled that the challengers of Sections 4 and 7 of RA 8249 failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality and
reasonableness of the questioned provisions. The classification between those pending cases involving the concerned
public officials whose trial has not yet commenced and whose cases could have been affected by the amendments of the
Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under RA 8249, as against those cases where trial had already started as of the approval of
the law, rests on substantial distinction that makes real differences. Since it is within the power of the Congress to define
the jurisdiction of courts subject to the constitutional limitations, it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of that
jurisdiction would necessarily affect pending cases, which is why it has to provide for a remedy in the form of a transitory
provision. Thus, petitioner and intervenors cannot now claim that Sections 4 and 7 placed them under a different category

from those similarly situated as them. Moreover, petitioner's and intervenor's contention that their right to a two-tiered
appeal which they acquired under RA 7975 has been diluted by the enactment of RA 8249 is incorrect. The same
contention had already been rejected by the Court considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in
nature that can be regulated by law. The mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right to appeal is not included in
the prohibition against ex post facto law.RA 8249 pertains only to matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory
statute it does not partake the nature of an ex post facto law.
Anent the issue of jurisdiction, the Court ruled that for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of
murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of those accused PNP officers, the offense
charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court, not the Sandiganbayan. Accordingly, the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of RA 8249 is sustained and the
Addendum to the March 5, 1997 resolution of the Sandiganbayan is reversed. CaEIST

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; SANDIGANBAYAN; REQUISITES TO FALL UNDER ITS EXCLUSIVE

JURISDICTION. A perusal of the aforequoted Section 4 of R.A. 8249 reveals that to fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A.
3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c) Chapter II,
Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery), (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A,
issued in 1986 (sequestration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2)
the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employee holding any of the
positions enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office. ICASEH
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHAT DETERMINES THE SANDIGANBAYAN'S JURISDICTION IS THE OFFICIAL POSITION OR RANK
OF THE OFFENDER. Considering that herein petitioner and intervenors are being charged with murder which is a
felony punishable under Title VIII of the Revised Penal Code, the governing provision on the jurisdictional offense is not
paragraph a but paragraph b, Section 4 of R.A. 8249. This paragraph b pertains to "other offenses or felonies whether
simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of
[Section 4, R.A. 8249] in relation to their office." The phrase "other offenses or felonies" is too broad as to include the
crime of murder, provided it was committed in relation to the accused's official functions. Thus, under said paragraph b,
what determines the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender that is, whether he is
one of those public officers or employees enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4. The offenses mentioned in paragraphs
a, b and c of the same Section 4 do not make any reference to the criminal participation of the accused public officer as to
whether he is charged as a principal, accomplice or accessory. In enacting R.A. 8249, the Congress simply restored the
original provisions of P.D. 1606 which does not mention the criminal participation of the public officer as a requisite to
determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; EX POST FACTO LAW; DEFINED; REPUBLIC ACT 8249 NOT AN EX POST FACTO LAW. Again,
this contention is erroneous. There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. In Calder v. Bull, an ex post facto law is one
(a) which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when committed, and
punishes such action; or (b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; or (c) which
changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed, (d)
which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant, (e) every law which, in relation to the offense or its
consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage. This Court added two more to the list, namely: (f) that
which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which
when done was lawful; (g) deprives a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled,
such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. Ex post facto law, generally,
prohibits retrospectively of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not a penal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not
penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their
violations; or those that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, which
amended P.D. 1606as regards the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has
been declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statue, i.e. one which prescribes rules of
procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. Not being a penal law, the retroactive
application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; RIGHT TO APPEAL IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT BUT STATUTORY IN
NATURE THAT CAN BE REGULATED BY LAW. Petitioner's and intervenors' contention that their right to a two-tiered
appeal which they acquired under R.A. 7975 has been diluted by the enactment of R.A. 8249, is incorrect. The same
contention has already been rejected by the court several times considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right
but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. The mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right of appeal is
not included in the prohibition against ex post facto laws. R.A. 8249pertains only to matters of procedure, and being
merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the nature of an ex post facto law. It does not mete out a penalty and,
therefore, does not come within the prohibition. Moreover, the law did not alter the rules of evidence or the mode of trial. It
has been ruled that adjective statutes may be made applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their
passage. In any case, R.A. 8249 has preserved the accused's right appeal to the Supreme Court to review questions of
law. On the removal of the intermediate review of facts, the Supreme Court still has the power of review to determine if the
presumption of innocence has been convincingly overcome. ESTDIA
5. ID.; SANDIGANBAYAN; JURISDICTION; DEFINED; SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT 8249 REQUIRES THAT THE
OFFENSE CHARGED MUST BE COMMITTED BY THE OFFENDER IN RELATION TO HIS OFFICE IN ORDER FOR
THE SANDIGANBAYAN TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER IT. The jurisdiction of a court is defined by theConstitution or
statute. The elements of that definition must appear in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which court has
jurisdiction over a case. Hence the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the

complaint or information, and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial. As stated earlier, the multiple
murder charge against petitioner and intervenors falls under Section 4 [paragraph b] of R.A. 8249. Section 4 requires that
the offense charged must be committed by the offender in relation to his office in order for the Sandiganbayan to have
jurisdiction over it. This jurisdictional requirement is in accordance with Section 5, Article XIII of the
1973 Constitution which mandated that the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over criminal cases committed by public
officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, "in relation to their office as may
be determined by law." This constitutional mandate was reiterated in the new [1987] Constitution when it declared in
Section 4 thereof that the Sandiganbayan "shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may
be provided by law."

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; MERE ALLEGATION IN THE INFORMATION THAT THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED BY THE
ACCUSED PUBLIC OFFICER IN RELATION TO HIS OFFICE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FALL UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN. The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth with such particularity
as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was,
sad to say, not satisfied. We believe that the mere allegation in the amended information that the offense was committed
by the accused public officer in relation to his office" is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a
factual averment that would show the close intimacy between the offense charged and the discharge of the accused's
official duties. In People vs. Magallanes, where the jurisdiction between the Regional Trial Court and the Sandiganbayan
was at issue, we ruled: "It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information and not by the result of evidence after trial. "In (People vs. Montejo (108 Phil. 613 [1960]), where the amended
information alleged Leroy S. Brown City Mayor of Basilan City, as such, has organized groups of police patrol and civilian
commandoes consisting of regular policemen and . . . special policemen appointed and provided by him with pistols and
high power guns and then established a camp . . . at Tipo-tipo which is under his command . . . supervision and control
where his co-defendants were stationed, entertained criminal complaints and conducted the corresponding investigations
as well as assumed the authority to arrest and detain person without due process of law and without bringing them to the
proper court, and that in line with this set-up established by said Mayor of Basilan City as such, and acting upon his orders
his co-defendants arrested and maltreated Awalin Tebag who died in consequence thereof. We held that the offense
charged was committed in relation to the office of the accused because it was perpetrated while they were in the
performance, though improper or irregular of their official functions and would not have been committed had they not held
their office, besides, the accused had no personal motive in committing the crime thus, there was an intimate connection
between the offense and the office of the accused. "Unlike in Montejo the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 15562 and
15563 in the court below do not indicate that the accused arrested and investigated the victims and then killed the latter in
the course of the investigation. The informations merely allege that the accused, for the purpose of extracting or extorting
the sum of P353,000.00 abducted, kidnapped and detained the two victims, and failing in their common purpose, they
spot and killed the said victims. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is these allegations that shall control, and

not the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial." In the aforecited case of People vs. Montejo, it is noteworthy
that the phrase committed in relation to public office does not appear in the information, which only signifies that the said
phrase is not what determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations
in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused's official duties and the
commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.
Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with
the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain
murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan.

DECISION

MARTINEZ, J p:
The constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8249 an act which further defines the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan is being challenged in this petition for prohibition and mandamus. Petitioner Panfilo Lacson, joined
by petitioners-intervenors Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr., also seeks to prevent theSandiganbayan from
proceeding with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 (for multiple murder) against them on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. LLphil
The antecedents of this case, as gathered from the parties' pleadings and documentary proofs, are as follows:
In the early morning of May 18, 1995, eleven (11) persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang,
reportedly an organized crime syndicate which had been involved in a spate of bank robberies in Metro Manila, were slain
along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group
(ABRITG) headed by Chief Superintendent Jewel Canson of the Philippine National Police (PNP). The ABRITG was
composed of police officers from the Traffic Management Command (TMC) led by petitioner-intervenor Senior
Superintendent Francisco Zubia, Jr.; Presidential Anti-Crime Commission Task Force Habagat (PACC-TFH) headed by
petitioner Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson; Central Police District Command (CPDC) led by Chief Superintendent
Ricardo de Leon; and the Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) headed by petitioner-intervenor Chief Superintendent
Romeo Acop.
Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of the CIC, that what actually transpired at dawn of
May 18, 1995 was a summary execution (or a rub out) and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang
members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators headed by the Deputy
Ombudsman for Military Affairs, Bienvenido Blancaflor, to investigate the incident. This panel later absolved from any
criminal liability all the PNP officers and personnel allegedly involved in the May 18, 1995 incident, with a finding that the
said incident was a legitimate police operation. 1

However, a review board led by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa modified the Blancaflor panel's finding and
recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six (26) respondents, including herein petitioner and
intervenors. This recommendation was approved by the Ombudsman, except for the withdrawal of the charges against
Chief Supt. Ricardo de Leon.
Thus, on November 2, 1995, petitioner Panfilo Lacson was among those charged as principal in eleven (11) informations
for murder 2 before the Sandiganbayan'sSecond Division, while intervenors Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr. were
among those charged in the same informations as accessories after-the-fact.
Upon motion by all the accused in the 11 informations, 3 the Sandiganbayan allowed them to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Ombudsman's action. 4
After conducting a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed on March 1, 1996 eleven (11) amended informations 5 before
the Sandiganbayan, wherein petitioner was charged only as an accessory, together with Romeo Acop and Francisco
Zubia, Jr. and others. One of the accused 6 was dropped from the case.
On March 5-6, 1996, all the accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting
that under the amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2
(paragraphs a and c) of Republic Act No. 7975. 7 They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or more of the "principal accused" are government officials with Salary Grade
(SG) 27 or higher, or PNP officials with the rank of Chief Superintendent (Brigadier General) or higher. The highest
ranking principal accused in the amended informations has the rank of only a Chief Inspector, and none has the
equivalent of at least SG 27. cda
Thereafter, in a Resolution 8 dated May 8, 1996 (promulgated on May 9, 1996), penned by Justice Demetriou, with
Justices Lagman and de Leon concurring, and Justices Balajadia and Garchitorena
dissenting, 9 the Sandiganbayan admitted the amended information and ordered the cases transferred to the Quezon City
Regional Trial Court which has original and exclusive jurisdiction under R.A. 7975, as none of the principal accused has
the rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. prLL
On May 17, 1996, the Office of the Special Prosecutor moved for a reconsideration, insisting that the cases should remain
with the Sandiganbayan. This was opposed by petitioner and some of the accused.
While these motions for reconsideration were pending resolution, and even before the issue of jurisdiction cropped up with
the filing of the amended informations on March 1, 1996, House Bill No. 2299 10 and No. 1094 11 (sponsored by
Representatives Edcel C. Lagman and Neptali M. Gonzales II, respectively), as well as Senate Bill No. 844 12 (sponsored
by Senator Neptali Gonzales), were introduced in Congress, defining/expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Specifically, the said bills sought, among others, to amend the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word
"principal" from the phrase "principal accused" in Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of R.A. No. 7975.

These bills were consolidated and later approved into law as R.A. No. 8249 13 by the President of the Philippines on
February 5, 1997.
Subsequently, on March 5, 1997, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution 14 denying the motion for reconsideration
of the Special Prosecutor, ruling that it "stands pat in its resolution dated May 8, 1996."
On the same day, 15 the Sandiganbayan issued an ADDENDUM to its March 5, 1997 Resolution, the pertinent portion of
which reads:
"After Justice Lagman wrote the Resolution and Justice Demetriou concurred in it, but before Justice
de Leon, Jr. rendered his concurring and dissenting opinion, the legislature enacted Republic Act
8249 and the President of the Philippines approved it on February 5, 1997. Considering the pertinent
provisions of the new law, Justices Lagman and Demetriou are now in favor of granting, as they
are now granting, the Special Prosecutor's motion for reconsideration. Justice de Leon has
already done so in his concurring and dissenting opinion.

xxx xxx xxx

"Considering that three of the accused in each of these cases are PNP Chief Superintendents:
namely, Jewel T. Canson, Romeo M. Acop and Panfilo M. Lacson,and that trial has not yet begun in
all these cases in fact, no order of arrest has been issued this court has competence to take
cognizance of these cases.
"To recapitulate, the net result of all the foregoing is that by the vote of 3 to 2, the court admitted the
Amended Informations in these cases and by the unanimous vote of 4 with 1 neither concurring
nor dissenting, retained jurisdiction to try and decide the cases." 16 [Emphasis supplied]
Petitioner now questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249, including Section 7 thereof which provides
that the said law "shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof."
Petitioner argues that:
"a) The questioned provisions of the statute were introduced by the authors thereof in bad faith as it
was made to precisely suit the situation in which petitioner's cases were in at the Sandiganbayan by
restoring jurisdiction thereover to it, thereby violating his right to procedural due process and the equal
protection clause of theConstitution. Further, from the way the Sandiganbayan has footdragged for nine
(9) months the resolution of a pending incident involving the transfer of the cases to the Regional Trial
Court, the passage of the law may have been timed to overtake such resolution to render the issue
therein moot, and frustrate the exercise of petitioner's vested rights under the old Sandiganbayan law
(RA 7975).

"b) Retroactive application of the law is plain from the fact that it was again made to suit the peculiar
circumstances in which petitioner's cases were under, namely, that trial had not yet commenced, as
provided in Section 7, to make certain that those cases will no longer be remanded to the Quezon City
Regional Trial Court, as theSandiganbayan alone should try them, thus making it an ex post
facto legislation and a denial of the right of petitioner as an accused in Criminal Case Nos. 2304723057 to procedural due process.
"c) The title of the law is misleading in that it contains the aforesaid "innocuous" provisions in Sections 4
and 7 which actually expands rather than defines the oldSandiganbayan law (RA 7975), thereby
violating the one-title one-subject requirement for the passage of statutes under Section 26(1), Article VI
of the Constitution." 17
For their part, the intervenors, in their petition-in-intervention, add that "while Republic Act No. 8249 innocuously appears
to have merely expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the introduction of Sections 4 and 7 in said statute
impressed upon it the character of a class legislation and an ex-post facto statute intended to apply specifically to the
accused in the Kuratong Baleleng case pending before the Sandiganbayan." 18 They further argued that if their case is
tried before theSandiganbayan their right to procedural due process would be violated as they could no longer avail of the
two-tiered appeal to the Sandiganbayan, which they acquired under R.A. 7975, before recourse to the Supreme Court.
Both the Office of the Ombudsman and the Solicitor General filed separate pleadings in support of the constitutionality of
the challenged provisions of the law in question and praying that both the petition and the petition-in-intervention be
dismissed.
This Court then issued a Resolution 19 requiring the parties to file simultaneously within a nonextendible period of ten
(10) days from notice thereof additional memoranda on the question of whether the subject amended informations filed in
Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 sufficiently allege the commission by the accused therein of the crime charged within
the meaning Section 4 b of Republic Act No. 8249, so as to bring the said cases within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan.
The parties, except for the Solicitor General who is representing the People of the Philippines, filed the required
supplemental memorandum within the nonextendible reglementary period.
The established rule is that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification there
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one. 20 The burden of
proving the invalidity of the law lies with those who challenge it. That burden, we regret to say, was not convincingly
discharged in the present case.
The creation of the Sandiganbayan was mandated in Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, which provides:
"SEC. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which
shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other

offenses committed by public officers and employees including those in government-owned or

controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law."
The said special court is retained in the new (1987) Constitution under the following provision in Article XI, Section 4:
"Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and
exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law."
Pursuant to the constitutional mandate, Presidential Decree No. 1486 21 created the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, the
following laws on the Sandiganbayan, in chronological order, were enacted: P.D. No. 1606, 22 Section 20 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, 23 P.D. No. 1860, 24 P.D. No. 1861, 25 R.A. No. 7975, 26 and R.A. No. 8249. 27Under the latest
amendments introduced by Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following cases:
"SEC. 4. Section 4 of the same decree [P.D. No. 1606, as amended] is hereby further amended to read
as follows:
"SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving:
"a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of
the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of theCompensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department
heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position
of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or
higher; cdphil
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;
(2) Members of Congress or officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and up under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' or higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
"b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by
the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection a of this section in relation to their
office.
"c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986.
"In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade '27' or
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above,
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be,
pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or
orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their
appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
"The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions of the issuance of the writs
of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto,
arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and

14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the
Supreme Court.
"The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the
Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review
to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In
all cases elevated to theSandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office
of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except
in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

"In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they
shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over them.
xxx xxx xxx." (Emphasis supplied)
Section 7 of R.A. No. 8249 states:
"SEC. 7. Transitory provision. This act shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which
trial has not begun as of the approval hereof." (Emphasis supplied)
The Sandiganbayan law prior to R.A. 8249 was R.A. 7975. Section 2 of R.A. 7975 provides:
"SEC. 2. Section 4 of the same decree [Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended] is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 4. Jurisdiction The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving:
"a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of theCompensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,

and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department
heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;
(2) Members of Congress or officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and up under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' or higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
"b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
Subsection a of this section in relation to their office.
"c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A.
"In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade
'27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of
superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial
court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129.

"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regular courts where all the accused are occupying positions lower than grade
'27,' or not otherwise covered by the preceding enumeration.
xxx xxx xxx
"In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they
shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over them.
xxx xxx xxx." (Emphasis supplied)
Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975 reads:
"SEC. 7. Upon the effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases in which trial has not begun in the
Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper courts."
Under paragraphs a and c, Section 4 of R.A. 8249, the word "principal" before the word "accused" appearing in the
above-quoted Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of R.A. 7975, was deleted. It is due to this deletion of the word "principal"
that the parties herein are at loggerheads over the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner and intervenors, relying
on R.A. 7975, argue that the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases
since none of the principalaccused under the amended information has the rank of Superintendent 28 or higher. On the
other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special Prosecutor who is tasked to represent the People before
the Supreme Court except in certain cases, 29 contends that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction pursuant toR.A. 8249.
A perusal of the aforequoted Section 4 of R.A. 8249 reveals that to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as
amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c)Chapter II, Section 2,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery), 30 (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A, issued in
1986 (sequestration cases), 31or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the
offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employee 32 holding any of the
positions enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.
Considering that herein petitioner and intervenors are being charged with murder which is a felony punishable under Title
VIII of the Revised Penal Code, the governing provision on the jurisdictional offense is not paragraph a but paragraph b,
Section 4 of R.A. 8249. This paragraph b pertains to "other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of [Section 4, R.A. 8249] in relation to
their office." The phrase "other offenses or felonies" is too broad as to include the crime of murder, provided it was
committed in relation to the accused's official functions. Thus, under said paragraph b, what determines
the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender that is, whether he is one of those

public officers or employees enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4. The offenses mentioned in paragraphs a, b and c of
the same Section 4 do not make any reference to the criminal participation of the accused public officer as to whether
he is charged as a principal, accomplice or accessory. In enacting R.A. 8249, the Congress simply restored the original
provisions of P.D. 1606 which does not mention the criminal participation of the public officer as a requisite to determine
the jurisdiction of theSandiganbayan.
Petitioner and intervenors' posture that Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the
law 33 because its enactment was particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases in the Sandiganbayan, is a
contention too shallow to deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant a
declaration of an act of the entire Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of the coequal executive department as unconstitutional. Every classification made by law is presumed reasonable. Thus, the party
who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. 34
It is an established precept in constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a
legislation based on reasonable classification. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when there is concurrence
of four elements, namely:
(1) it must rest on substantial distinction;
(2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and
(4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. 35
all of which are present in this case.
The challengers of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality and reasonableness
of the questioned provisions. The classification between those pending cases involving the concerned public officials
whose trial has not yet commenced and whose cases could have been affected by the amendments of
the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under R.A. 8249, as against those cases where trial had already started as of the approval
of the law, rests on substantial distinction that makes real differences. 36 In the first instance, evidence against them were
not yet presented, whereas in the latter the parties had already submitted their respective proofs, examined witnesses and
presented documents. Since it is within the power of Congress to define the jurisdiction of courts subject to the
constitutional limitations, 37 it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of that jurisdiction would necessarily affect
pending cases, which is why it has to provide for a remedy in the form of a transitory provision. Thus, petitioner and
intervenors cannot now claim that Sections 4 and 7 placed them under a different category from those similarly situated as
them. Precisely, paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply to "all cases involving" certain public officials and,
under the transitory provision in Section 7, to "all cases pending in any court." Contrary to petitioner and intervenors'
argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only
cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in "any court." It just happened that the Kuratong Balelengcases

are one of those affected by the law. Moreover, those cases where trial had already begun are not affected by the
transitory provision under Section 7 of the new law (R.A. 8249).

In their futile attempt to have said sections nullified, heavy reliance is premised on what is perceived as bad faith on the
part of a Senator and two Justices of theSandiganbayan 38 for their participation in the passage of the said provisions. In
particular, it is stressed that the Senator had expressed strong sentiments against those officials involved in the Kuratong
Baleleng cases during the hearings conducted on the matter by the committee headed by the Senator. Petitioner further
contends that the legislature is biased against him as he claims to have been selected from among the 67 million other
Filipinos as the object of the deletion of the word "principal" in paragraph a, Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended, and of
the transitory provision of R.A. 8249. 39 R.A. 8249, while still a bill, was acted, deliberated, considered by 23 other
Senators and by about 250 Representatives, and was separately approved by the Senate and House of Representatives
and, finally, by the President of the Philippines.
On the perceived bias that the Sandiganbayan Justices allegedly had against petitioner during the committee hearings,
the same would not constitute sufficient justification to nullify an otherwise valid law. Their presence and participation in
the legislative hearings was deemed necessary by Congress since the matter before the committee involves the graft
court of which one is the head of the Sandiganbayan and the other a member thereof. The Congress, in its plenary
legislative powers, is particularly empowered by the Constitution to invite persons to appear before it whenever it decides
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. 40
Petitioner and intervenors further argued that the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 to the Kuratong Baleleng cases
constitutes an ex post facto law 41 for they are deprived of their right to procedural due process as they can no longer
avail of the two-tiered appeal which they had allegedly acquired under R.A. 7975.
Again, this contention is erroneous. There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. In Calder v. Bull, 42 an ex post facto law
is one
(a) which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when
committed, and punishes such action; or
(b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; or
(c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when it was committed;
(d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required
at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant; 43
(e) Every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his
disadvantage. 44

This Court added two more to the list, namely:

(f) that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or
deprivation of a right which when done was lawful;
(g) deprives a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such
as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. 45
Ex post facto law, generally, prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. 46 R.A. 8249 is not a penal law. It is a substantive law
on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and
establish penalties for their violations; 47 or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their
punishment. 48 R.A. 7975, which amended P.D. 1606 as regards the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and
other procedural matters, has been declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, i.e. one
which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. 49 Not
being a penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. cdpr
Petitioner's and intervenors' contention that their right to a two-tiered appeal which they acquired under R.A. 7975 has
been diluted by the enactment of R.A. 8249, is incorrect. The same contention has already been rejected by the court
several times 50 considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by
law. The mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right of appeal is not included in the prohibition against ex post
facto laws. 51 R.A. 8249 pertains only to matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not
partake the nature of an ex post facto law. It does not mete out a penalty and, therefore, does not come within the
prohibition. 52 Moreover, the law did not alter the rules of evidence or the mode of trial. 53 It has been ruled that adjective
statutes may be made applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. 54
In any case, R.A. 8249 has preserved the accused's right to appeal to the Supreme Court to review questions of
law. 55 On the removal of the intermediate review of facts, the Supreme Court still has the power of review to determine if
the presumption of innocence has been convincingly overcome. 56
Another point. The challenged law does not violate the one-title-one-subject provision of the Constitution. Much emphasis
is placed on the wording in the title of the law that it "defines" the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction when what it allegedly does
is to "expand" its jurisdiction. The expansion in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, if it can be considered as such, does
not have to be expressly stated in the title of the law because such is the necessary consequence of the amendments.
The requirement that every bill must only have one subject expressed in the title 57 is satisfied if the title is
comprehensive enough, as in this case, to include subjects related to the general purpose which the statute seeks to
achieve. 58 Such rule is liberally interpreted and should be given a practical rather than a technical construction. There is
here sufficient compliance with such requirement, since the title of R.A. 8249 expresses the general subject (involving the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the amendment of P.D. 1606, as amended) and all the provisions of the law are
germane to that general subject. 59 The Congress, in employing the word "define" in the title of the law, acted within its

powers since Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution itself empowers the legislative body to "define, prescribe,
and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts." 60
There being no unconstitutional infirmity in both the subject amendatory provision of Section 4 and the retroactive
procedural application of the law as provided in Section 7 of R.A. No. 8249, we shall now determine whether under the
allegations in the Informations, it is the Sandiganbayan or Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the multiple
murder case against herein petitioner and intervenors.
The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution or statute. The elements of that definition must appear in the
complaint or information so as to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over a case. Hence the elementary rule that the
jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, 61 and not by the evidence
presented by the parties at the trial. 62
As stated earlier, the multiple murder charge against petitioner and intervenors falls under Section 4 [paragraph b] of R.A.
8249. Section 4 requires that the offense charged must be committed by the offender in relation to his office in order for
the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over it. 63 This jurisdictional requirement is in accordance with Section 5, Article
XIII of the 1973 Constitution which mandated that the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over criminal cases
committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations "in relation
to their office as may be determined by law." This constitutional mandate was reiterated in the new
(1987) Constitution when it declared in Section 4 thereof that the Sandiganbayan "shall continue to function and
exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law."
The remaining question to be resolved then is whether the offense of multiple murder was committed in relation to the
office of the accused PNP officers.
In People vs. Montejo, 64 we held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it (the
offense) is "intimately connected" with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his
official functions. 65 This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties "must be
alleged in the information." 66
As to how the offense charged be stated in the information, Section 9 Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates:
"SEC. 9. Cause of accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition, not necessarily in the
terms of the statute defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to
pronounce proper judgment." (Emphasis supplied)
As early as 1954, we pronounced that "the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts." 67 "The
real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the

specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual
recital of facts in the complaint or information." 68

The noble object of written accusations cannot be overemphasized. This was explained in U.S. v. Karelsen: 69
"

The object of this written accusations was First. To furnish the accused with such a description of the

charge against him as will enable him to make his defense; and second, to avail himself of his
conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and third, to
inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support
a conviction, if one should be had. In order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be
stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent; these must be
set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity oftime, place, names (plaintiff and
defendant), and circumstances. In short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every
fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged." (Emphasis supplied)
It is essential, therefore, that the accused be informed of the facts that are imputed to him, as "he is presumed to have
no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense." 70
Applying these legal principles and doctrines to the present case, we find the amended informations for murder against
herein petitioner and intervenors wanting ofspecific factual averments to show the intimate
relation/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official function of the offenders.
In the present case, one of the eleven (11) amended informations 71 for murder reads:
"AMENDED INFORMATION
"The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer III, Office of the Ombudsman, hereby accuses, CHIEF
INSP. MICHAEL RAY AQUINO, CHIEF INSP. ERWIN T. VILLACORTE, SENIOR INSP. JOSELITO T.
ESQUIVEL, INSP. RICARDO G. DANDAN, SPO4 VICENTE P. ARNADO, SPO4 ROBERTO F.
LANGCAUON, SPO2 VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, SPO2 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, SPO1 WILFREDO C.
CUARTERO, SPO1 ROBERTO O. AGBALOG, SPO1 OSMUNDO B. CARINO, CHIEF SUPT. JEWEL F.
CANSON, CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO M. ACOP, CHIEF SUPT. PANFILO M. LACSON, SENIOR SUPT.
FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., SUPT. ALMARIO A. HILARIO, CHIEF INSP. CESAR O. MANCAO III,
CHIEF INSP. GIL L. MENESES, SENIOR INSP. GLENN DUMLAO, SENIOR INSP. ROLANDO
ANDUYAN, INSP. CEASAR TANNAGAN, SPO3 WILLY NUAS, SPO3 CICERO S. BACOLOD, PO2
NORBERTO LASAGA, PO2 LEONARDO GLORIA and PO2 ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG of the crime
of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code committed as
follows:

"That on or about May 18, 1995, in Mariano Marcos Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused CHIEF INSP. MICHAEL RAY AQUINO, CHIEF INSP.
ERWIN T. VILLACORTE, SENIOR INSP. JOSELITO T. ESQUIVEL, INSP. RICARDO G. DANDAN,
SPO4 VICENTE P. ARNADO, SPO4 ROBERTO F. LANGCAUON, SPO2 VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS,
SPO2 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, SPO1 WILFREDO C. CUARTERO, SPO1 ROBERTO O. AGBALOG
and SPO1 OSMUNDO B. CARINO, all taking advantage of their public and official positions as
officers and members of the Philippine National Police and committing the acts herein alleged in
relation to their public office, conspiring, with intent to kill and using firearms, with treachery, evident
premeditation and taking advantage of their superior strengths, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously shoot JOEL AMORA, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused his
instantaneous death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.
"That accused CHIEF SUPT. JEWEL F. CANSON, CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO M. ACOP, CHIEF SUPT.
PANFILO M . LACSON, SENIOR SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., SUPT. ALMARIO A. HILARIO,
CHIEF INSP. CESAR O. MANCAO II, CHIEF INSP. GIL L. MENESES, SENIOR INSP. GLENN
DUMLAO, SENIOR INSP. ROLANDO ANDUYAN, INSP. CEASAR TANNAGAN, SPO3 WILLY NUAS,
SPO3 CICERO S. BACOLOD, PO2 ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG, committing the acts in relation to
office as officers and members of the Philippine National Police, are charged herein as accessories
after-the-fact for concealing the crime herein above alleged by, among others, falsely representing
that there were no arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused herein at Superville
Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro Manila, on or about the early dawn of May 18, 1995.
"CONTRARY TO LAW"
While the above-quoted information states that the above-named principal accused committed the crime of murder "in
relation to their public office," there is, however,no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said
principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended
information does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in
their custody.
Even the allegations concerning the criminal participation of herein petitioner and intervenors as among the accessories
after-the-fact, the amended information is vague on this. It is alleged therein that the said accessories concealed "the
crime herein-above alleged by, among others, falsely representing that there were no arrests made during the raid
conducted by the accused herein at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro Manila, on or about the early dawn of May
18, 1995." The sudden mention of the "arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused" surprises the
reader. There is no indication in the amended information that the victim was one of those arrested by the
accused during the "raid." Worse, the raid and arrests were allegedly conducted "at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque,
Metro Manila" but, as alleged in the immediately preceding paragraph of the amended information, the shooting of the

victim by the principal accused occurred "in Mariano Marcos Avenue, Quezon City." How the raid, arrests and shooting
happened in two places far away from each other is puzzling. Again, while there is the allegation in the amended
information that the said accessories committed the offense "in relation to office as officers and members of the (PNP),"
we, however, do not see the intimate connection between the offense charged and the accused's official functions, which,
as earlier discussed, is an essential element in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. prcd
The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense
which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was, sad to say, not satisfied. We believe that the
mere allegation in the amended information that the offense was committed by the accused public officer "in relation to his
office" is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that would show the close
intimacy between the offense charged and the discharge of the accused's official duties.
In People vs. Magallanes, 72 where the jurisdiction between the Regional Trial Court and the Sandiganbayan was at
issue, we ruled:
"It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information,
and not by the result of evidence after trial.
"In (People vs.) Montejo (108 Phil. 613 [1960]), where the amended information alleged:
Leroy S. Brown, City Mayor of Basilan City, as such, has organized groups of police patrol and
civilian commandoes consisting of regular policemen and . . . special policemen, appointed and
provided by him with pistols and high power guns and then established a camp . . . at Tipo-tipo,
which is under his command . . . supervision and control, where his co-defendants were
stationed, entertained criminal complaints and conducted the corresponding investigations, as
well as assumed the authority to arrest and detain persons without due process of law and
without bringing them to the proper court, and that in line with this set-up established by said
Mayor of Basilan City as such, and acting upon his orders, his co-defendants arrested and
maltreated Awalin Tebag, who died in consequence thereof.
we held that the offense charged was committed in relation to the office of the accused because it was
perpetrated while they were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions
and would not have been committed had they not held their office; besides, the accused had no
personal motive in committing the crime; thus, there was an intimate connection between the offense
and the office of the accused.
"Unlike in Montejo, the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 15562 and 15563 in the court below do not
indicate that the accused arrested and investigated the victims and then killed the latter in the course of
the investigation. The informations merely allege that the accused, for the purpose of extracting or
extorting the sum of P353,000.00, abducted, kidnapped, and detained the two victims, and failing in

their common purpose, they shot and killed the said victims. For the purpose of determining
jurisdiction, it is these allegations that shall control, and not the evidence presented by the
prosecution at the trial."
In the aforecited case of People vs. Montejo, it is noteworthy that the phrase "committed in relation to public office" does
not appear in the information, which only signifies that the said phrase is not what determines the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the
close intimacy between the discharge of the accused's official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order
to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.
Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with
the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain
murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, 73 not the Sandiganbayan.

WHEREFORE, the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 is hereby sustained. The Addendum to the March 5,
1997 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is REVERSED. The Sandiganbayan is hereby directed to transfer Criminal Cases
Nos. 23047 to 23057 (for multiple murder) to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which has exclusive original
jurisdiction over said cases. LLphil
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,
Buena and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
||| (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, [January 20, 1999], 361 PHIL 251-284)