Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 520 views

    Case Digest 1

    Uploaded by

    Victor Lim
    The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to jurisdiction and the ability of public officials to serve as counsel. In People v. Montilla, the Court held that Congressman Crisologo could serve as counsel as his office was not related to the criminal case. In People v. Lagon, the City Court did not have jurisdiction as the penalty had increased beyond its authority. In People v. Montejo, the judge committed abuse of discretion by rejecting prosecution evidence. Senator Lim could not serve as counsel as the case involved a government employee. The Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction in Bartolome v. People and People v. Magallanes as the crimes were not related to the officials' duties

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest 1

    Uploaded by

    Victor Lim
    520 views4 pages
    The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to jurisdiction and the ability of public officials to serve as counsel. In People v. Montilla, the Court held that Congressman Crisologo could serve as counsel as his office was not related to the criminal case. In People v. Lagon, the City Court did not have jurisdiction as the penalty had increased beyond its authority. In People v. Montejo, the judge committed abuse of discretion by rejecting prosecution evidence. Senator Lim could not serve as counsel as the case involved a government employee. The Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction in Bartolome v. People and People v. Magallanes as the crimes were not related to the officials' duties

    Original Description:

    asdsa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to jurisdiction and the ability of public officials to serve as counsel. In People v. Montilla, the Court held that Congressman Crisologo could serve as counsel as his office was not related to the criminal case. In People v. Lagon, the City Court did not have jurisdiction as the penalty had increased beyond its authority. In People v. Montejo, the judge committed abuse of discretion by rejecting prosecution evidence. Senator Lim could not serve as counsel as the case involved a government employee. The Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction in Bartolome v. People and People v. Magallanes as the crimes were not related to the officials' duties

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    520 views4 pages

    Case Digest 1

    Uploaded by

    Victor Lim
    The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to jurisdiction and the ability of public officials to serve as counsel. In People v. Montilla, the Court held that Congressman Crisologo could serve as counsel as his office was not related to the criminal case. In People v. Lagon, the City Court did not have jurisdiction as the penalty had increased beyond its authority. In People v. Montejo, the judge committed abuse of discretion by rejecting prosecution evidence. Senator Lim could not serve as counsel as the case involved a government employee. The Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction in Bartolome v. People and People v. Magallanes as the crimes were not related to the officials' duties

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Manuel Montilla(Provincial Fiscal, Ilocos Sur , Faustino Tobia vs Zoilo Hilario(Judge CFI Ilocos

    Sur), Floro Crisologo (Congressman)


    Facts: Section 17, Article VI, of the Constitution bars Senators and members of the House of
    Representatives from, among other inhibitions, appearing as counsel before any court "in any criminal
    case wherein an officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense committed in relation to
    his office."
    Montilla and Tobia seek to set aside an order of Judge Hilario overruling their objection to allow
    Crisologos intervention as defense counsel in Criminal Case 129 for murder with(and) frustrated Murder
    against the municipal mayor and three members of the police force of Santa Catalina Ilocos Sur.
    The information charges that the defendants took advantage of their public positions, conspiring together
    with firearms to attack and shoot several persons that killed one Claudio Ragasa and inflict physical
    injuries to three others.
    The official posts of the accused in the criminal case were not in connection in the information filed but the
    prosecution stated the motives of the crime were personal with political character
    Issue: Whether or not Floro Crisologo can appear as counsel?
    Held: There was no evidence that the office of congressman Crisologo had anything to do with the
    criminal case that said congressman wanted to appear as counsel.
    People v. Lagon
    Facts: A criminal case was filed charging Lagon with the crime of estafa because of an issued check for
    payment of goods or merchandise purchased of which bounced due to lack of funds.
    An order was then issued by Judge Barrios, stating that the penalty prescribed by law was beyond the
    courts authority to impose The judge held that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is
    determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, and not by the law in force at the
    time of the commission of the crime. The penalty imposable upon the accused was increased and said
    penalty was beyond the courts authority to impose.
    Issue: Does the City Court have jurisdiction on the case?
    Held: No, the City Court doesnt have jurisdiction on the case. It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject
    matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly measured by the law in effect at the time of
    the commencement of a criminal action, rather than by the law in effect at the time of the commission of
    the offense charged. Jurisdiction over the instant case pertained to the then Court of First Instance of
    Roxas City considering that P.D. No. 818 had increased the imposable penalty for the offense charged in
    Criminal Case
    People v. Montejo
    Facts: Mayor Brown organized a substation at Tipo-Tipo, Lamitan consisting of regular and special
    policemen which was placed under his direct supervision and control. Pollisco then ordered the
    apprehension of persons and were detained in the camp for days or weeks, without due process of law
    and without bringing them to proper court.
    One Yokan Tebag was ordered by orders of Brown, without warrant or complaint filed in court and was
    detained in the substation. Said Tebag was maltreated by orders of Brown through the policemen and
    died in the process. Brown then brought the body of Tebag in a nearby field simulating that the latter was
    a member of a band of armed bandits.
    Respondent Judge rejected numerous direct and rebuttal evidence by the prosecution.

    Issue: WON the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the evidence brought
    by the prosecution.
    WON Senator Roseller Lim may appear as counsel for the main respondents
    Held:
    Yes, the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the evidences brought by the prosecution.
    It is elemental that all parties therein are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to establish their respective
    pretense. The issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused is based on the evidence brought by both
    parties and should be given a chance to present.
    No, Senator Roseller Lim will not appear as counsel for the main respondents. the Constitution provides
    that no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall "appear as counsel ... in any criminal
    case wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation of
    his office ... (Art. VI, Sec. 17, Const. of the Phil.).
    Browns co-defendants obeyed his instructions because he was their superior office, as Mayor of Basilan
    City. Because of the merits of the case, Senator Lim is not allowed to appear as counsel for the
    defendants on the case.
    Bartolome v. People
    Facts:
    Bartolome and Santos were charged by the Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor of the crime of Falsification
    of Official Document. Bartolome was a Senior Labor Regulation Officer of the Ministry of Labor while
    Santos is a Labor Regulation Officer at the same office of which they falsified an official document stating
    that accused Bartolome took the Career Service exam with a grade of 73.35 and was a 4 th year AB from
    FEU, but both knew did not take said exam and was not a 4 th year AB Student.

    Issue: WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over said case


    Held: The Sandiganbayan court does not have jurisdiction on said case and any proceedings thereto are
    void ab initio.
    Citing Montejo and Montilla doctrine, there is no showing that the accused committed the alleged
    falsification using their official functions as labor regulation officers. The information does not allege that
    there was an intimate connection between the discharge of their official duties and commission of the
    offense.
    People v. Magallanes
    Facts: Two informations were filed for kidnapping for ransom with murder with the RTC of Bacolod City
    against the respondents where in some of the accused implicated as principals are members of the PNP.
    The private prosecutors moved for the transmittal of the records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan the
    trial court has no jurisdiction over the cases because the offenses charged were committed in relation to
    the office of the accused PNP officers
    The respondent judge in the RTC ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the
    subject cases because the information does not state that the offenses were committed in relation to the
    office of the PNP officers. Citing Montilla doctrine.
    Citing Montejo doctrine, the prosecution moved to reconsider said order

    Dumancas and Torres are also respondents in the criminal cases filed a motion for bail but was denied by
    the trial court
    Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan or RTC has jurisdiction on the two cases.
    Whether or not the motions for bail of respondents Dumancas and Torres were allowed.
    Held: 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.
    Since the information filed lacked the allegation that the accused PNP officers were committing the crime
    in relation to the office of the latter or connected to the discharge of their functions, the subject case
    comes within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
    There is no showing that the said accused-respondents have questioned the denial of their applications
    for bail in a petition for certiorari either before the Court of Appeals or this Court. Here, about nine to ten
    months had already elapsed before the respondents assailed the denial of their motions for bail. In any
    event, the private respondents who were denied bail are not precluded from reiterating before the trial
    court their plea for admission to bail.
    Inding v Sandiganbayan
    Facts Inding was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City with violation of Section 3
    of RA 3019. Inding being a councilor of Dapitan City and while in performance of his official functions
    faked buy-bust operations against alleged pushers and users to enable him to claim or collect from the
    coffers of the city government as reimbursement for actual expenses of said buy-bust operations of which
    he had no participation in said police operations.
    A criminal case was then filed against Inding and was raffled to the second division of the
    Sandiganbayan. Inding filed an Omnibus Motion stating that the Sandiganbayan doesnt have jurisdiction
    and was to be referred to either the RTC or MTC for appropriate proceedings.
    The petitioner alleged therein that under Administrative Order No. 270 which prescribes the Rules and
    Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, he is a member of the Sangguniang
    Panlungsod of Dapitan City with Salary Grade (SG) 25. He asserted that under Republic Act No. 7975,
    which amended Presidential Decree No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan exercises original jurisdiction to try
    cases involving crimes committed by officials of local government units only if such officials occupy
    positions with SG 27 or higher, based on Rep. Act No. 6758
    Issue Whether or not the members of the sangguniang panglusod are included in the jurisdiction of the
    Sandiganbayan
    Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the petitioner for violating Section 3 of
    RA 3019
    Held: Yes, the members of the sangguniang panglusod are included in the jurisdiction of the
    Sandiganbayan regardless of the salary grade as stated in RA 7975
    Yes the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the petitioner for violating RA 3019. Generally, the
    jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the
    institution of the action not at the time of the commission of the crime.
    HOWEVER. In RA 7975 as well as RA 8249 constitutes an exception as to determine the jurisdiction of
    the Sandiganbayan in cases violating RA 3019 of which the reckoning period is the time of the

    commission of the offense. As stated in the RA 7975, the petitioner is under the jurisdiction of the
    Sandiganbayan over cases filed against him for violating RA 3019 regardless of salary grades since it is
    specified in said RA
    Serana v Sandiganbayan
    Facts: Hannah Serana was a senior student of UP Cebu. She was appointed by President Estrada as a
    student regent of UP. Petitioner then discussed with President Estrada in renovating the Vinzons Hall
    Annex in UP Diliman and petitioner with her siblings and relatives registered with the SEC the Office of
    the Student Regent Foundation Inc. OSRFI
    The renovation of the Vinzon Halls Annex were one of the projects of the foundation and President
    Estrada gave 15 million Pesos as financial assistance of which the source coming from the office of the
    president.
    Said renovations failed to materialize and the succeeding student regent Bugayong and De Guzman filed
    a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Ombudsman.
    Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian Serana for estafa in a
    criminal case No. 27819 of the Sandiganbayan
    Petitioner moved to quash the information stating that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over
    the offense charged over her in capacity as UP student regent
    Issue Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the petitioner.
    Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa
    Held:
    -

    Sec 4 of RA 8249 states the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over public officials
    RA 3019 is a penal statute to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike
    which constitute graft or corrupt practices. Sec 10 of said RA states that all prosecutions for
    violations of said law should be filed with the Sandiganbayan
    Section 4(b) of PD 1606 reads that other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with
    other crimes committed by the public officials and employees are also included.

    You might also like