Republic v.

Asuncion
Special Courts | G.R. No. 108208 | Davide Jr., J.

DOCTRINE (for topic): For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses or felonies committed by public
officers or employees … it is not enough that the penalty prescribed therefor is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for
six years, or a fine of P6,000.00; it is also necessary that such offenses or felonies were committed in relation to their office.

FACTS OF THE CASE: Private Respondent Alexander Dionisio y Manio, a member of the PNP assigned in Novaliches, QC, was
dispatched to Dumalay St. in Novaliches to respond to a complaint that a person was creating trouble there. Dionisio proceeded to
the place, where he subsequently shot to death T/Sgt. Romeo Sadang.

Cause of Action

Nature Petition for Certiorari

Parties Pet: Republic of the Philippines

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
RTC City Prosecutor filed an information charging Dionisio with homicide pursuant to Sec 7, R112 of RoC.

a. Judge Asuncion issued an order dismissing the case; for re-filing with the Sandiganbayan on the ground that
the Sandiganbayan, and not the RTC, has jurisdiction over the case (in view of the SC decision in Deloso v
Domingo)

Judge’s Ratio:
- SB has jurisdiction over offenses committed by pub. officials when the penalty prescribed by law for
the offense is higher than prision correccional (Sec. 4, subpar. (c), P.D. 1606). The offense charged in
this case is reclusion temporal max to death.
- The clause “any (illegal) act or omission of any public official” in Sec 4 (c) of PD 1606 is broad enough to
embrace any crime committed by a public official. SB still can be classified as a regular court
functioning within the framework of the judicial department of the government. It is a 'trial court
and bound by the rules governing trial courts.

b. Prosecutor moved for a reconsideration citing the opinion of the SoJ that "crimes committed by PNP
members are not cognizable by the Sandiganbayan" because "they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
regular courts" as provided in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 and "the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a
special court”

MR dismissed by Judge Asuncion, stating that:

- Opinion of the Secretary of Justice is not binding to this Court

- What is contemplated in the law is the regular civil court to the exclusion of non-regular courts such as
military courts which had previous jurisdiction over police officers

- The police force being civilian in character should be under the jurisdiction of the civil court

- What is meant by "regular courts" mentioned in Sec. 46, RA 6975 are the "inferior courts" in Article X of
the Constitution which calls for a unitary judicial system with the Supreme Court at the top of the
hierarchical set-up

SC a. Petitioner filed this petition insisting that the dismissal of the criminal case, "for refiling with the SB" 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 SB since it is, constitutionally and statutorily, a "special
 court" and not a regular court

- Sec 5, Art XIII of the 1973 Constitution described the SB as "a special court”

- Sec 4, Art XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that "the present anti-graft court known as the SB shall
continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law”

- If it were the intention of R.A. 6975 to grant to the SB jurisdiction over PNP members, then Sec 46 should
have explicitly stated or used the term “civil courts”

- If it were the intention of R.A. 6975 to include the SB in the term "regular courts" in Section 46, then it
should not have provided therein that "criminal cases against PC-INP members who may have not yet
been arraigned upon the effectivity of this Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincial
prosecutor or municipal trial court judge";

 instead, it should have directed such transfer to "the Ombudsman or the Special Prosecutor since they are is mandated by law
to entertain cases cognizable only by the SB”

- There is an irreconcilable conflict between Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 and Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606
(revising P.D. No. 1486 which created the SB), as amended, which vests in the SB exclusive original
jurisdiction over "other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to
their office . . . where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional . . . or a fine of
P6,000.00"; the latter then should be deemed impliedly repealed by the former, which is a later law

 P.D. No. 1606, as amended, is a general law as it applies to all public officers, while R.A. No. 6975 is a special law for it sets out
a special rule of jurisdiction for PNP members. The latter should thus prevail.

b. Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion for leave to intervene and to file comment; that the Office of the
Ombudsman and the DOJ had issued a joint circular wherein (a) both agencies agreed that, subject to the
final determination by competent authorities, the term "regular courts" in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 refers
to "civilian courts" as distinguished from military courts, and (b) certain guidelines were adopted to govern
the investigation and prosecution of PNP members.

- Motion to intervene was granted

- Asserts that the term "regular courts" in Sec 46 of R.A. 6975 includes the SB and that R.A. 6975 has not
repealed Sec 4 of P.D. 1606

- As to which law is the special law, the Ombudsman maintains that it is P.D. 1606 because it deals
specifically with the jurisdiction of the SB while Sec 46 of R.A. 6975 does not specifically mention any
particular court.

ISSUES with HOLDING:

W/N the term regular courts in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 refers to civil courts — YES

1. The provisions of R.A. 6975 on the PNP are intended to implement Section 6, Article XVI (General Provisions) of the 1987
Constitution which reads: The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in
character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police
units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law. (This is an answer to the martial law regime. See dicta)

2. The mandate of Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 is to divest courts-martial of any jurisdiction over criminal cases involving PNP
members and to return or transfer that jurisdiction to the civil courts. This return or transfer of jurisdiction to the civil courts
was explicitly provided for in the original Section 68 of House Bill No. 23614 which reads as follows:
Sec. 68. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. — Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding, criminal cases involving PNP
members shall, immediately upon effectivity of this Act, be exclusively tried by the Civil Courts: Provided, however, That in cases
where a member of the PNP is unable to post bail, he may be placed upon order by the court under the custody of his supervisor
upon petition of the latter.

3. During the deliberation by the Bicameral Conference Committee on National Defense on House Bill No. 23614 and Senate Bill
No. 463, more specifically on Section 68 of the former, its Chairman, Senator Ernesto Maceda, used the term "regular courts" in
lieu of civil courts.

a. The term regular courts was finally carried into the reconciled bill, entitled “An Act Establishing the Philippine National Police
Under a Reorganization Department of the Interior and Local Government, and for Other Purposes.” The reconciled bill was
approved by such both House of Congress and became R.A. No. 6975.

b. The terms civil courts and regular courts were used interchangeably or were considered as synonymous by the Bicameral
Conference Committee and then by the Senate and the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the term regular courts in
Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 means civil courts.

i. There could have been no other meaning intended since the primary purpose of the law is to remove from courts-martial the
jurisdiction over criminal cases involving members of the PNP and to vest it in the courts within our judicial system, i.e., the civil
courts which, as contradistinguished from courts-martial, are the regular courts. Courts-martial are not courts within the Philippine
judicial system; they pertain to the executive department of the government and are simply instrumentalities of the executive
power. Courts-martial are not regular courts.

W/N Sandiganbayan is included in the term regular courts (also civil courts) — YES

1. Section 16, Chapter 4, Book II of the Administrative Code of 1987 : 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.”

a. 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.

b. Sandiganbayan is a regular court and is thus included in the term regular courts in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975.

2. Petitioner's insistence that it is not - because, by the Constitution and by the statutes, the Sandiganbayan is a special court and,
therefore, not a regular court is untenable

a. With reference to the courts, the terms principally relate to jurisdiction. Thus, there are courts of general jurisdiction and
courts of special jurisdiction. It is incorrect to say that only courts of general jurisdiction are regular courts. Courts of
special jurisdiction, which are permanent in character, are also regular courts.

b. The Sandiganbayan is a court with special jurisdiction because its creation as a permanent anti-graft court is
constitutionally mandated and its jurisdiction is limited to certain classes of offenses.

3. That the Sandiganbayan is among the regular courts is further strongly indicated by:

a. Section 1 of P.D. No. 1606 which vests upon it "all the inherent powers of a court of justice" and places it on "the same
level as the Court of Appeals”

b. Section 4 thereof, as amended by P.D. No. 1861, which grants it appellate jurisdiction over certain cases decided by the
RTCs, MTCs, MeTCs, and MCTCs
4. Application: Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 did not repeal Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861, with regard to
the jurisdiction of the PNP.

a. Members of the PNP, as public officers and employees, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan with respect to
(a) violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal
Code, and (b) other offenses or felonies committed by them in relation to their office where the penalty prescribed by law
is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment of six years, or a fine of P6,000.00.

b. All other offenses committed by them are cognizable by the appropriate courts within the judicial system such as the RTCs,
MTCs, MeTCs, and MCTCs.

c. 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.

WON the case at bar falls within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan — Case remanded to RTC

1. For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses or felonies committed by public officers or
employees, under Section 4(a) (2) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D.No. 1861, it is not enough that the penalty prescribed
therefor is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years, or a fine of P6,000.00; it is also necessary that such
offenses or felonies were committed in relation to their office.

a. Montilla v. Hilario: an offense may be considered as committed in relation to the office if "the offense cannot exist without
the office," or that "the office must be a constituent element of the crimes as . . . defined and punished in Chapter Two to
Six, Title Seven, of the Revised Penal Code”

b. People vs. Montejo: that the offense must be intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetuated while
he was in the performance, though improper or irregular, of his official functions.

c. Further, the offense committed in relation to the office must be alleged in the information.

2. Application:

a. There is no indication at all that the trouble-maker was the victim and that he was shot by the private respondent in the
course of the latter's mission. On the other hand, the private respondent asserts in his Comment that he "shot Romeo
Sadang in the performance of a lawful duty and in lawful defense of his life.”

b. The dismissal then of Criminal Case No. Q-91-23224 solely on the basis of Deloso vs. Domingo was erroneous. Considering
the absence of any allegation in the information that the offense was committed by private respondent in relation to his
office, it would appear that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

c. In view of this eventuality and the special circumstances of this case, and to avoid further delay, if not confusion, we shall
direct the court a quo to conduct a preliminary hearing in this case to determine whether the crime charged was committed
by the private respondent in relation to his office.

i. If yes, Sandiganbayan

ii. If no, proceed with the trial of the case

DISPOSITIVE:

Remanded to the court a quo to conduct a preliminary hearing in this case to determine whether the crime charged was committed
by the private respondent in relation to his office.
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING the respondent Judge to conduct, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of this
Decision, a preliminary hearing in Criminal Case No. Q-91-23224 to determine whether the crime charged was committed by the private
respondent in relation to his office, and
(1)If he determines that the crime charged was committed by the private respondent in relation to his office, DIRECTING the respondent Judge to
forthwith transmit the records of the case to the Sandiganbayan which shall docket and proceed with the case as if the same were originally filed
with it; or
(2)If he determines otherwise, DIRECTING him to set aside the challenged Orders of 24 September 1992 and 7 October 1992, to proceed with the
hearing of Criminal Case No. Q-91-23224, and to render judgment thereon.”

DICTA:

Under issue 1:

a. The sponsors of House Bill No. 23614, which together with Senate Bill No. 463 eventually became R.A. No. 6975 were
unequivocal on this.

b. Police forces have traditionally been under civilian authority. However, the dictatorial regime of then President
Ferdinand Marcos, consistent with his own agenda to strengthen the machinery of martial law rule, exploited to his
advantage the provision of the 1973 Constitution which mandated the establishment and maintenance of "an integrated
national police force whose organization, administration, and operation shall be provided by law.”

c. The overwhelming sentiment of the framers of the 1987 Constitution against the martial law regime and the
militarization of the police forces prompted them to explicitly direct the establishment and maintenance of one police
force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character. The Declaration of Policy (Section 2) of R.A. No. 6975
faithfully carried out this mandate.