ANTIPORDA Vs GARCHITORENA

ANTIPORDA vs GARCHITORENA
Facts:
Municipal Mayor Antiporda and others were charged with the crime of kidnapping
one Elmer Ramos. It was filed with the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. The
Information reads as follows:
“That on September 1, 1995, in Sanchez Mira, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused Eliterio Rubiaco, Caesar Talla, Vicente Gascon
and Licerio Antiporda, Jr…did then and there… kidnap Elmer Ramos from his
residence in Marzan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan against his will with the use of a Maroon
Tamaraw FX motor vehicle…“
Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to submit an amendment to the Information:
Sandiganbayan expressed anxiety as to the Court's jurisdiction over the case

considering that it was not clear whether or not the subject matter of the accusation
was office related.
For this purpose, Prosecutor Agcaoili is given 30 days to submit the amendment
embodying whatever changes necessary in order for the Information to effectively
describe the offense herein charged...
The prosecution filed an Amended Information:
“That on September 10, 1997, at Sanchez Mira, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused Licerio Antiporda, Jr., being the Municipal Mayor
of Buguey, Cagayan in the exercise of his official duties as such and taking advantage
of his position, ordered, confederated and conspired with Juan Gallardo, Barangay
Captain of San Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan (now deceased) and accused Eliterio
Rubiaco, barangay councilman of San Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan, Vicente Gascon and
Caesar Talla… kidnap and abduct the victim Elmer Ramos… and detain him illegally
at the residence of Antiporda for more than five (5) days.”
Accused then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that a reinvestigation of the
case be conducted and the issuance of warrants of arrest be deferred.
Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto denied the Omnibus Motion.
The accused filed a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in
Abeyance and/or Recall Warrant of Arrest Issued which was also denied "on the
ground that there was nothing in the Amended Information that was added… so that
the accused could not claim a right to be heard separately in an investigation in the
Amended Information.
Also, the Court ruled that "since none of the accused have submitted themselves to
the jurisdiction of the Court, the accused are not in a position to be heard on this
matter at this time"
The accused filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information for lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Sandiganbayan ignored the Motion to Quash since the accused have continually
refused to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court.
A MR was filed wherein it was alleged that the filing of the Motion to Quash and the
appearance of their counsel during the scheduled hearing amounted to their
voluntary appearance and invested the court with jurisdiction over their persons.
Sandiganbayan denied the MR.
Issues:
a) Can the Sandiganbayan, which has no jurisdiction as charged in the original

complaint, acquire jurisdiction through the amendment of Information? NO,
petitioners barred by estoppel.
Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction
Sec. 4, par (a) of P.D. 1606, as amended by P.D. 1861:
(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation
to their office…
Criminal Jurisdiction Requisites:
(1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of
(SUBJECT MATTER)
(2) the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction (VENUE
OR TERRITORY)
(3) the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for
trial (PERSON OF THE ACCUSED)
a) forcibly by warrant of arrest
b) or upon his voluntary submission to the court.
PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
Petitioners:
o Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction since the original information did not allege
that one of the petitioners, took advantage of his position as mayor.
o Court lacking jurisdiction cannot order the amendment of the information.
Court:
o They cannot question the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan

because they insist that said court acquired jurisdiction over their motion to quash.
SUBJECT MATTER
WON the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged? NO.
The original Information did not mention that the offense committed by the accused
is office-related.
BUT, the petitioners are estopped for in the MR filed with the Sandiganbayan, it was
they who "challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case and clearly stated in
their MR that the said crime is work connected.
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against
his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction.
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was thus
vested with the authority to order the amendment of the Information.
b) Can the amended information be allowed without conducting anew a

preliminary investigation for the graver offense charged therein?
Reinvestigation is not necessary anymore. It is proper only if the accused's

substantial rights would be impaired. The amendments merely describe the public
positions and where the victim was brought when he was kidnapped.
A preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on

the merits and but determines only whether there is probable cause to believe that
the accused is guilty.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation has been achieved already and we see no
cogent nor compelling reason why a reinvestigation should still be conducted.

ANTIPORDA Vs GARCHITORENA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTIPORDA Vs GARCHITORENA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTIPORDA Vs GARCHITORENA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTIPORDA vs GARCHITORENA

Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to submit an amendment to the Information:

Sandiganbayan expressed anxiety as to the Court's jurisdiction over the case

The prosecution filed an Amended Information:

Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto denied the Omnibus Motion.

Sandiganbayan denied the MR.

a) Can the Sandiganbayan, which has no jurisdiction as charged in the original

Sec. 4, par (a) of P.D. 1606, as amended by P.D. 1861:

(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

Criminal Jurisdiction Requisites:

a) forcibly by warrant of arrest

b) or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

o Court lacking jurisdiction cannot order the amendment of the information.

o They cannot question the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan

b) Can the amended information be allowed without conducting anew a

Reinvestigation is not necessary anymore. It is proper only if the accused's

A preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on

You might also like