Lacson v. Executive Secretary

LACSON v.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G.R. No. 128096 Jan 20, 1999 Martinez, J.
Article 3 – Section 22 Created By: Katrina G. Pimentel
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
Petitioners Respondents
Panfilo M. Lacson Executive Secretary
Recit Ready Summary

In 1995, 11 persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime
syndicate responsible for multiple bank robberies, were slain along Commonwealth by members of
the PNP. Due to a media expose, it was alleged that the death of these gang members was not due
to a “shoot out”, but rather a summary execution. In line with this, Ombudsman Desierto filed an
Information in the Sandiganbayan against the PNP members who allegedly took part in the killing.
Petitioner Lacson, Chief Superintendent of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission Task Force
Habagat, argues that the SB does not have the proper jurisdiction over the case, as the events
which transpired happened before the enactment of R.A. 8249.
The enactment of R.A. 8249 in 1997 expanded the jurisdiction of the SB. Section 4 of this law states
that the SB has original jurisdiction over all crimes committed by public officials, such as the PNP
Chief Superintendent and other higher ranked PNP officials. Section 7 provides that if the trial has
not yet begun for other cases pending which fall under the SB’s expanded jurisdiction, these should
be transferred to the proper court. Petitioner argues that when the crime was committed, it still fell
the previous law providing for the jurisdiction of the SB (R.A. 7975), which stated that the SB has
jurisdiction only when the PRINCIPAL accused is one of the public officers provided for in the R.A.
Since the petitioner was only charged as an ACCESSORY to the crime, he does not fall under this
provision. However, under the newly enacted R.A., the word “PRINCIPAL” was deleted. He argues
that Section 7 constitutes an EX POST FACTO LAW, as it allows the SB to now take cognizance of
his pending case.
The Supreme Court ruled that such contention is ERRONEOUS. The Constitutional provision on ex
post facto laws only pertains to that of penal laws. In citing the case of Calder v. Bull, the Court
enumerated what makes an act EX POST FACTO:
a) Which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when
committed, and punishes such action;
b) Which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed;
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,
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.
Since R.A. 8249 simply provides for the jurisdiction of the SB, it is merely a substantive law. Penal
laws are those which prohibit and punish certain acts by imposing penalties. Furthermore, the
assailed R.A. does not alter the rules of evidence in any way. However, the Supreme Court ruled
that ultimately, it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the case because there is nothing alleged in
the information filed that the crime was committed in connection to the official duties of the accused
– which is a requisite for when the SB can take cognizance over a case.
Facts of the Case

 On May 18, 1995, 11 persons believed to be members of the KURATONG BALELENG
gang (organized crime syndicate, involved in numerous bank robberies) were slain on
Commonwealth Ave, QC
 This was done by the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG) headed by
Chief Superintendent Jewel Canson of the PNP
 The ABRITG was composed of police offers from the Traffic Management Command (TMC)
led by Francisco Zubia, Presidential Anti-Crime Commission – Task Force Habagat (PACC-
TFH) led by Chief Superintendent petitioner Panfilo M. Lacson, Central Police District
Command (CPDC) led by Chief Superintendent Ricardo de Leon, an the Criminal
Investigation Comand (CIC) headed by petitioner-intervenor Chief Superintendent Romeo
Acop
 Due to a media expose, it was alleged that what transpired was not a shoot-out but a
SUMMARY EXECUTION of the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and these police groups
 Acting on this, Ombudsman Desierto formed a panel of investigators to solve the issue
 On November 2, 1995, petitioner Lacson was among those charged before the
Sandiganbayan for the crime of multiple murder, however, after conducting a
reinvestigation, the Ombudsman charged petitioner as an accessory
 On March 5-6 1996, petitioners filed a cause questioning the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over this case, and averred that it should fall under the Regional Trial Court
 They based their assertion on R.A. 7975 – which stated that the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan is limited to cases where one or more of the PRINCIPAL ACCUSED are
government officials with the Salary Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with the rank of
Chief Superintendent (Brigadier General) or higher  In their case, the highest ranking
PRINCIPAL accused is only a Chief Inspector
 However, R.A. 8249 was then enacted on February 5, 1997 which expanded the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused”
 Following this, the Sandiganbayan issued an ADDENDUM to its March 5, 1997 resolution of
the cases which stated that: “Trial has not yet begun in these cases – in fact, no order of
arrest has been issued – this court has competence to take cognizance of these cases”
 Petitioner now questions the constitutionality of R.A. 8249, particularly sections 4 and 7,
which state that the said law “shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial
has not yet begun as of the approval hereof”, he argues that this constitutes an EX POST
FACTO LAW (Section 4 provides for the SB having jurisdiction over PNP chief
superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank, while Section 7 provides that “This act
shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the
approval hereof”
Issues Ruling
1. W/N Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. No. 8249 are ex post facto No
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. Petitioners stated that the law was a violation of their right to EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of
constitutionality and reasonableness. There is a real, distinct classification between those who
have pending cases involving public officers and those cases which could have been affected by
the enactment of R.A. 8249. The first group has not yet had their evidence against them
presented, whereas in the latter, proofs have already been submitted and the decisions have
already reached a point of finality. Therefore, this argument cannot prosper.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner’s contention regarding whether or not R.A. No. 8249
can be considered as an ex post facto law is ERRONEOUS. There is nothing ex post facto
about R.A. 8249. As the assailed R.A. is not penal in character, and it is merely a
SUBSTANTIVE LAW on jurisdiction, the provision on ex post facto laws should not apply.
3. “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. 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 one… which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying
laws of all kinds can properly administer justice.” Same goes for R.A. 8249. The right to appeal
is not a natural right, but merely statutory.
4. The Supreme Court cited the case of Calder v. Bull, which enumerated what an ex post facto
law is: a) which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was
innocent when committed, and punishes such action; b) which aggravates a crime or makes it
greater than when it was committed; 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
5. The Court added two more to this list: 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
6. R.A. 8249 pertains only to matters of PROCEDURE, and being an amendatory statute, it does
not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. Section 7 is merely a TRANSITORY
PROVISION.
7. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it is the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT that has jurisdiction
over the cases and not the Sandiganbayan. This is because the jurisdiction of the court is limited
by what is filed in the allegations in the INFORMATION. As Section 4 of R.A. 8249 provides that
the offense charged must be committed by an offender IN RELATION TO HIS OFFICE, and
there is nothing in the information that shows that the crime was committed in relation to the
official positions held by the accused, the Sandiganbayan cannot have jurisdiction over the
petitions.
Disposition
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 jurisdiction over said cases.
Separate Opinions
N/A

Lacson v. Executive Secretary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lacson v. Executive Secretary

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

Lacson v. Executive Secretary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LACSON v.

Recit Ready Summary

b) Which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed;

Facts of the Case

You might also like