Case Summary (G.R. No. 122641)
Information and Charges
An information dated July 17, 1995 (filed July 28, 1995) charged both petitioners with arbitrary detention under Article 124, Revised Penal Code, alleging the detention was willful, unlawful, felonious, and related to their official functions.
Motion to Quash and Petitioners’ Arguments
On August 28, 1995, petitioners moved to quash the information, arguing:
- Arbitrary detention is a crime against fundamental laws, outside Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.
- R.A. No. 7975 should apply prospectively; petitioners were private individuals when charged.
- Penal laws must be strictly construed against the State.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Supplementary Pleadings
The prosecution contended that Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 7975 vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction based on the petitioners’ official positions at the time of the offense. Petitioners supplemented their motion, challenging vagueness, the discretionary nature of bail in deportation proceedings, and arguing that R.A. No. 7975 should not apply retroactively.
Sandiganbayan’s Resolution and Orders
On October 25, 1995, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions to quash, ruling that it has original jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation to office by officials of Grade 27 and above. Arraignment was set for November 10, 1995. A motion for reconsideration was denied the same day, and a not guilty plea was entered; pre-trial was scheduled for January 12, 1996.
Petition for Certiorari Before the Supreme Court
Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in refusing to quash the information and in proceeding to arraignment despite jurisdictional defects.
Jurisdiction Under P.D. No. 1606 (Pre-R.A. 7975)
Section 4(a)(2) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by E.O. No. 184, granted exclusive original jurisdiction to the Sandiganbayan over offenses by public officers in relation to their office when the penalty exceeded prision correccional (over six years’ imprisonment).
Jurisdiction Under R.A. No. 7975
With effect from May 16, 1995, R.A. No. 7975 amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 to vest jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan over graft, related crimes under Title VII of the RPC, and other offenses committed in relation to office by officials classified as Grade 27 and above at the time of the offense; co-conspirators of such officials also fall under its jurisdiction.
Supreme Court’s Analysis – Offense Jurisdiction
Arbitrary detention committed in relation to official duties, carrying a penalty of prision mayor (six years and one day to twelve years), falls squarely within the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive original jurisdiction under the pre-R.A. 7975 provisions.
Supreme Court’s Analysis – Persona
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 122641)
Facts
- On or about June 25, 1992, in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Bayani Subido, Jr. (then Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation) and Rene Parina (then BID Special Agent) conspired to issue and execute a warrant of arrest against James J. Maksimuk despite a pending Motion for Reconsideration of the BID decision requiring deportation.
- Maksimuk was detained for forty-three (43) days, allegedly causing him undue injury.
- Petitioners were charged with Arbitrary Detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code via an information dated July 17, 1995 (filed July 28, 1995).
Procedural History
- Arraignment originally set on August 28, 1995.
- August 28, 1995: Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash; October 7, 1995: filed a Supplementary Motion to Quash.
- October 25, 1995: Sandiganbayan Resolution denied both motions to quash and scheduled arraignment for November 10, 1995.
- November 9, 1995: Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
- November 10, 1995: Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration and, over petitioners’ objection, entered a plea of not guilty and set pre-trial on January 12, 1996.
- Petitioners elevated the matter by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- By reason of Republic Act No. 7975 (effective May 6, 1995), amending Section 4 of P.D. 1606, Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over (a) Arbitrary Detention (not enumerated in Title VII, Chapter II of the RPC), (b) petitioners’ persons—Subido already a private individual as of February 28, 1995, and Parina below salary grade 27—and (c) penal laws must be strictly construed against the State.
- In their Supplement, they further contended vagueness of the information; discretionary nature of bail under MO No. 04-92