Title
Lacson vs. Executive Secretary
Case
G.R. No. 128096
Decision Date
Jan 20, 1999
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8249 which altered Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction in pending murder cases, arguing it violated their due process rights. Court upheld the law, finding no ex post facto application.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 114427)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • May 18, 1995 Commonwealth Avenue Incident
    • Eleven suspected Kuratong Baleleng members were killed by the PNP’s Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG) under Chief Supt. Jewel Canson, with units led by Panfilo Lacson, Romeo Acop, Francisco Zubia Jr., and others.
    • A media exposé alleged a summary execution, prompting Ombudsman Desierto to form the Blancaflor panel, which initially cleared the officers; a subsequent review board led by Villa recommended multiple murder indictments.
  • Criminal Informations and Pre-enactment Proceedings
    • On November 2, 1995, Ombudsman filed 11 murder informations before the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division charging Lacson as principal and Acop/Zubia as accessories; after reinvestigation, amended informations (March 1, 1996) named all three only as accessories.
    • Accused filed motions questioning Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under R.A. 7975 (which limited SB jurisdiction to cases where a principal accused held SG 27 or PNP Chief Supt. rank); by Resolution dated May 8, 1996, SB ordered transfer to the Quezon City RTC.
  • Legislative Amendments and Sandiganbayan’s Final Resolution
    • While SB motions were pending, Congress consolidated House Bills 2299 & 1094 and Senate Bill 844 into R.A. 8249 (approved February 5, 1997; effectivity February 25, 1997), deleting “principal” from Section 4 and adding Section 7 applying it to pending cases.
    • On March 5, 1997, SB denied reconsideration of its May 8, 1996 Resolution but issued an Addendum (3–2 vote) applying R.A. 8249 to retain jurisdiction over the murder cases involving three PNP Chief Superintendents.
    • Lacson (with Acop and Zubia) filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court challenging SB’s addendum and the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249.

Issues:

  • Whether Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate the Constitution (due process, equal protection, ex post facto, one-title-one-subject).
  • Whether R.A. 8249 or R.A. 7975 governs the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over Criminal Cases Nos. 23047–23057.
  • Whether the amended murder informations sufficiently allege that the crime was committed “in relation to their office,” a jurisdictional requirement under Section 4 of R.A. 8249.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.