Escobal v. Garchitorena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Arnel Escobal, a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), was conducting surveillance operations on drug trafficking at a café bar when he was involved in a shooting incident resulting in the death of Rodney Rafael N. Nueca. An amended Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 21, charging Escobal with murder. Procedural History: The RTC issued an order preventively suspending Escobal. Escobal pleaded not guilty and later filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the court martial, not the RTC, had jurisdiction. The RTC denied the motion. After the prosecution rested its case, Escobal filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting Sandiganbayan jurisdiction as the crime was committed in the performance of his duties. The RTC denied this motion but ordered a preliminary hearing. Following the hearing, the RTC issued an order declaring that Escobal committed the crime not in the performance of his official function and that the issue was moot due to R.A. No. 7975. The RTC ordered the amendment of the Information to allege that the offense was not committed in relation to his duties. Subsequently, the RTC reversed its order, declaring that Escobal was on official mission when the shooting occurred and ordered the filing of a Re-Amended Information alleging the offense was committed in relation to his office, and the transmission of the records to the Sandiganbayan. The Petition: The Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan ordered the remand of the case records to the RTC, reasoning that under P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, the RTC retained jurisdiction because Escobal had a salary grade of "23." The Sandiganbayan also cited the rule on continuity of jurisdiction, as the prosecution had already rested its case and Escobal had commenced presenting his evidence. Escobal filed a petition for certiorari assailing this remand order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in ordering the remand of the case to the RTC, considering the petitioner's salary grade and the provisions of R.A. No. 7975. Whether R.A. No. 7975, which amended P.D. No. 1606, should be applied retroactively to the case. Whether the RTC or the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal case against the petitioner, considering the allegations in the Information and the effect of R.A. No. 7975.
Ruling
The respondent Presiding Justice acted in accordance with law and the rulings of the Supreme Court when he ordered the remand of the case to the RTC, the court of origin. The petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Presiding Justice's discretion and R.A. No. 7975: The Sandiganbayan's Presiding Justice acted in accordance with law and the rulings of the Supreme Court when he ordered the remand of the case to the RTC, the court of origin, considering the petitioner's salary grade and the provisions of R.A. No. 7975. On the application of R.A. No. 7975: The Supreme Court held that R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law which may be applied retroactively. The petitioner's contention that R.A. No. 7975 should not be applied retroactively has no legal basis because R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law which may be applied retroactively. On the jurisdiction of the court and the effect of R.A. No. 7975: The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the Information or the Complaint and the statute in effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. Under R.A. No. 7975, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade below "27," the proper Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the petitioner was a Police Senior Inspector, with salary grade "23." He was charged with homicide punishable by reclusion temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged conformably to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691. The amended Information filed with the RTC against the petitioner did not contain any allegation showing the intimate relation between his office and the discharge of his duties. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense charged when on November 24, 1995, it ordered the re-amendment of the Information to include therein an allegation that the petitioner committed the crime in relation to office.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction of a court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the Information and the statute in effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless such statute provides for retroactive application. Substantive procedural laws, such as R.A. No. 7975, may be applied retroactively. Even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his office, if he occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade below "27," the proper Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case.