G.R. No. 116615 - Cuan vs. Arceo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 116615)

Factual Background

The Information alleged that petitioner was a member of the Philippine National Police but contained no averment that he committed the offense in relation to his public office. During the events charged, petitioner was on a mission in Candaba, Pampanga. He left the police station after hearing a commotion and fired a shot while attempting to restore public order during altercations involving the victim and other persons. The victim died from the gunshot.

Trial Court Proceedings Before Judge Arceo

Petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded. After presentation of evidence, Judge Arceo required memoranda and deemed the case submitted for decision on November 4, 1993. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Republic v. Asuncion, Judge Arceo conducted a hearing limited to the question whether petitioner had committed the offense in relation to his office. On April 21, 1994, Judge Arceo found from the evidence that the killing occurred while petitioner was performing his official functions and held that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. He initially dismissed the case for refiling with the Sandiganbayan, then modified the order on May 23, 1994 to forward and transmit the complete records to the Sandiganbayan “as if it was originally filed with the said Court.”

Subsequent RTC Proceedings Before Judge Sunga

Upon motion, Judge Arceo inhibited on May 24, 1994 and the case was raffled to Branch 42, RTC of San Fernando, with Judge Sunga presiding. Judge Sunga denied petitioner’s Opposition to the order directing transmittal of records in an order dated July 14, 1994, and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on August 18, 1994. Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the orders transferring the case and transmitting the records to the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner asserted that jurisdiction was fixed in the RTC by the Information dated April 5, 1991, which lacked any averment connecting the offense to his public office, and that jurisdiction cannot be altered by subsequent evidence adduced at trial. He relied on Sanchez v. Hon. Demetriou to argue that the use or abuse of public office does not inhere in the crime of murder as an element. Petitioner also maintained that prior case law such as Deloso v. Domingo governed earlier proceedings and that the Asuncion rule should not apply retrospectively to a case in which trial had ended and the case had been submitted for decision, because transfer at that stage would expose him to double jeopardy. Petitioner further argued that Judge Arceo’s initial dismissal operated as an acquittal.

Legal Issue Presented

The principal legal question was whether the RTC judges correctly applied the doctrine in Republic v. Asuncion in ordering the transmittal of Criminal Case No. 5708 to the Sandiganbayan, where the absence of jurisdiction in the RTC became apparent only after trial had concluded and the case had been submitted for decision.

Statutory Rule on Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction

Section 4(a-2) of P.D. No. 1602, as amended by P.D. No. 1861, vests the Sandiganbayan with exclusive original jurisdiction over “other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office” where the penalty exceeds prision correccional, imprisonment for six years, or a fine of P6,000. Two requisites must concur for Sandiganbayan jurisdiction: (a) that the offense be committed by a public officer in relation to his office; and (b) that the penalty prescribed exceeds prision correccional or a fine of P6,000.

Jurisdiction as a Matter of Law and the Effect of an Omitted Averment

The Court reiterated that jurisdiction over an offense is conferred by law. The absence in the original Information of an averment that the offense was committed in relation to petitioner’s office is immaterial to the locus of jurisdiction. When the two statutory requisites are present, jurisdiction lies in the Sandiganbayan even if the Information filed in the RTC did not allege the relation to office. The Asuncion decision therefore directed trial courts to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine that jurisdictional fact when the Information omitted it.

Application of Asuncion to the Present Case

The RTC, applying Asuncion, conducted a hearing and found from the trial evidence that petitioner acted in the performance of his duties as a policeman in attempting to restore peace and order. The RTC’s factual findings emphasized that petitioner was on a mission, went out after hearing a commotion, and fired a warning shot with the intention of restoring order — duties of a policeman — and that such circumstances demonstrated the offense was intimately connected with his office. The Court held that once that jurisdictional fact was established, the RTC properly declared itself without jurisdiction.

Precedent on “Offense Committed in Relation to Office”

The Court examined its prior cases, including Sanchez v. Demetriou, Montilla v. Hilario, and People v. Montejo, to explain when an offense is “committed in relation to the office.” The Court observed that although public office is not an element of murder in the abstract, the facts of a particular case may show that the crime was intimately connected with and perpetrated while the accused was in the performance, albeit improper or irregular, of official functions. The circumstances in petitioner’s case placed the offense within that definition.

Amendment of the Information and Procedural Safeguards

The Court noted that the records forwarded to the Sandiganbayan would be treated “as if it was originally filed with” that tribunal, and that the Information may be amended in the Sandiganbayan at any time before arraignment, and by leave of court at any time before judgment, pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110, Rules of Court, and controlling precedents. The Court concluded that such amendment would not affect the juridical nature of the offense or the defenses available to petitioner and would therefore not surprise or prejudice him.

Double Jeopardy and the Effect of the RTC’s Proceedings

The Co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 116615)

Parties and Procedural Posture

FERDINAND CUNANAN, PETITIONER was the accused in an Information for Murder originally docketed as Criminal Case No. 5708 before Branch 46 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga.
HON. HERMIN E. ARCEO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 43 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA and HON. PEDRO M. SUNGA, JR., AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BRANCH 42 OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA were the public respondent judges whose orders transferring the case to the Sandiganbayan petitioner assailed by certiorari.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES appeared as the prosecuting party in the underlying criminal proceedings.
The petition for certiorari challenged the orders dated 23 May, 14 July and 18 August 1994 that directed transmission of the RTC records to the Sandiganbayan and refused petitioner’s objections.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information filed on 5 April 1991 charged petitioner with Murder and alleged petitioner was a member of the Philippine National Police but did not aver that the crime was committed in relation to his office.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial proceeded to presentation of evidence and submission for decision before the RTC.
The killing occurred when petitioner, while on a mission to restore public order after a fistfight, fired and killed the victim during efforts described as a warning shot and maintenance of peace and order.

Procedural History

Trial evidence was presented and the case was deemed submitted for decision by Order of 4 November 1993.
On 11 March 1994 the Supreme Court promulgated Republic v. Hon. Asuncion, et al., which directed preliminary hearings by RTCs to determine the jurisdictional fact of whether a public officer committed an offense in relation to his office.
HON. HERMIN E. ARCEO conducted the Asuncion hearing and in an Order dated 21 April 1994 found that petitioner committed the offense while performing official functions and ordered the case forwarded to the Sandiganbayan.
The initial RTC order dismissing the case for refiling was modified on 23 May 1994 to delete the dismissal and to forward the complete records to the Sandiganbayan as if originally filed there.
Judge Arceo inhibited himself and the case was raffled to Branch 42 presided by HON. PEDRO M. SUNGA, JR. who denied petitioner’s opposition and motion for reconsideration in Orders dated 14 July and 18 August 1994 respectively.

Statutory Framework

Section 4 (a-2) of P.D. No. 1602 as amended by P.D. No. 1861 vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan over offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office when the penalty exceeds prision correccional or imprisonment of six years or a fine of P6,000.00.
The jurisdictional test under the foregoing statute requires the concurrence of two requisites: that the offense was committed in relation to the accused’s office and that the prescribed penalty exceeds prision correccional or P6,000.
The Court referred to Section 14, Rule 110, Rules of Court as authority permitting amendment of information before arraignment and, by leave of court, at any time before judgment.

Issues Presented

Whether the public respondent RTC judge