Exam (elaborations)
JURISDICTION exams with solved questions and answers
- Course
- Institution
Exam of 17 pages for the course pncc at pncc (JURISDICTION)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
DESTINYGRACE
Content preview
JURISDICTIONFACTS: UCPB and COCOLIFE filed separate civil cases wherein they both assert
entitlement over certain shares of some Coconut Industry Investment Fund Companies.
They sought for the declaration of their rights over the said shares. However, the said
claims were opposed by the PCGG and the latter filed their motion to dismiss the
respective cases. The said cases were later on consolidated. The RTC issued an
omnibus order denying the motion to dismiss filed by the PCGG.
PCGG contends that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the acts performed by PCGG
pursuant to its quasijudicial functions, particularly those relating to the issuance of writs
of sequestration, and that all cases involving ill-gotten wealth assets are under the
unquestionable jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. On the other hand, UCPB and
COCOLIFE argue that since they have properly alleged a case for declaratory relief,
jurisdiction over the subject matter - ANSWERIt is clear that it is the Sandiganbayan
and not the Makati City RTC that has jurisdiction over the disputed UHC and PNCC
shares, being the alleged "ill-gotten wealth" of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos
and petitioner Cuenca. The fact that the Makati City RTC civil case involved the
performance of contractual obligations relative to the UHC shares is of no importance.
The benchmark is whether said UHC shares are alleged to be ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses and their perceived cronies. More importantly, the interests of orderly
administration of justice dictate that all incidents affecting the UHC shares and PCGG's
right of supervision or control over the UHC must be addressed to and resolved by the
Sandiganbayan. Indeed, the law and courts frown upon split jurisdiction and the
resultant multiplicity of suits, which result in much lost time, wasted effort, more
expenses, and irreparable injury to the public interest.
FACTS: Arnel Escobal is a member of the Philippine National Police. While Escobar
was conducting surveillance on drug trafficking at the Sa Harong Cafè Bar and
Restaurant, he somehow got involved in a shooting incident, resulting in the death of
Rodney Rafael N. Nueca. Escobal was then charged with the crime of murder. When
petitioner commenced the presentation of his evidence, he filed a Motion to Dismiss the
case arguing that since he committed the crime in the performance of his duties, the
Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The RTC denied the motion
but ordered the conduct of a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not the crime
charged was committed by the petitioner in relation to his office as a member of the
PNP. Thereafter, the RTC issued an Order declaring that the petitioner committed the
crime charged while not in the performance of his official function. The trial court added
- ANSWERFor the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the said law over
crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts
,showing the intimate relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of
official duties must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to merely allege in the
Information that the crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to his
office because that would be a conclusion of law. The amended Information filed with
the RTC against the petitioner does 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. The trial court erred when it ordered the
elevation of the records to the Sandiganbayan.
FACTS: Serana, in her capacity as student regent of UP, received from the Office of
President Estrada, a financial assistance in the amount of P15 Million for the renovation
of a certain school building in UP. Apparently, the said project did not materialize.
Consequently, Serana's successor as student regent instituted a complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman. The said office charged Serana with estafa. She claimed that
the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her
person, in her capacity as UP student regent because the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over estafa;
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case against
Serana as student regent of UP? - ANSWERHELD: Yes. Plainly, estafa is one of those
felonies within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject to the twin requirements
that: 1) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section
4(A) of PD No. 1606, as amended, and that; 2) The offense is committed in relation to
their office.
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of Regent, it has jurisdiction over the
other officers enumerated in PD No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People, the SC held that
while the first part of Sec. 4(A) covers only officials with Salary grade 27 and higher but
who are by express provisions of law placed under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provisions of law. Sec. 4(A)(1)(g) of
PD No. 1606 explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents,
directors and trustees, or manager of government-owned or controlled corporations,
state universities, or educational foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As the
Sandiganbayan pointed out, the Board of Regents performs functions similar to those of
a board of trustee of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is,
indeed, a public officer as contemplated by PD No. 1606.
FACTS: Danilo A. Duncano is, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) with Salary Grade 26 as classified under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758. Office of
the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Office of the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against
him for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713. Duncano filed a
Motion to Dismiss with Prayer to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest contending
that the SB has no jurisdiction to try and hear the case because he is an official of the
executive branch occupying the position of a Regional Director but with a compensation
that is classified as below Salary Grade 27.
, ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the SB considering he is
a Reg. Director with SG 26. - ANSWERHELD: Those that fall within the original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are: (1) officials of the executive branch with Salary
Grade 27 or higher, and (2) officials specifically enumerated in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to
(g), regardless of their salary grades. While the first part of Section 4 (A) covers only
officials of the executive branch with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part
specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary
Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Yet, those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided that they hold the positions enumerated by
the law. In this category, it is the position held, not the salary grade, which determines
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
FACTS: The Senate and House of Representatives conducted several inquiries on the
proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison, inviting inmates
who executed affidavits in support of their testimonies. These legislative inquiries led to
the filing of four complaints against Senator Leila De Lima ("Sen. De Lima"), et al. with
the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). The four complaints were consolidated. The DOJ
Panel conducted a preliminary hearing on December 2, 2016. Sen. De Lima filed an
Omnibus Motion to Immediately Endorse the Cases to the Office of the Ombudsman
and for the Inhibition of the DOJ Panel and the Secretary of Justice. Sen. De Lima
argued that the Office of the Ombudsman ("Ombudsman") has exclusive authority and
jurisdiction to hear the four complaints. The case should also be referred to the
Ombudsman because of evident partiality on the part of the DOJ Panel and the
Secretary of - ANSWERHELD: To reiterate for emphasis, Section 4 (b) of PD 1606, as
amended by RA 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over
crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their office;
Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction
violations of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. In the latter case, jurisdiction is
vested upon the RTCs designated by the Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless of
whether the violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the public officials' office.
The exceptional rule provided under Section 90, RA 9165 relegating original exclusive
jurisdiction to RTCs specially designated by the Supreme Court logically follows given
the technical aspect of drug-related cases. With the proliferation of cases involving
violation of RA 9165, it is easy to dismiss them as common and untechnical. However,
narcotic substances possess unique characteristics that render them not readily
identifiable.
The Court has held that an offense is deemed to be committed in relation to the public
office of the accused when that office is an element of the crime charged. However,
even if public office is not an element of the offense, the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan obtains when the relation between the crime and the office is direct and
not accidental such that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist without the office.
FACTS: The City of Manila, through its treasurer, assessed taxes for the taxable period
from January to December 2002 private respondents. In addition to the taxes
purportedly due from private respondents pursuant to Section 14, 15, 16, 17 of the
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller DESTINYGRACE. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $14.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
82871 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now