Escobal vs. Garchitorena

R.A. No. 7975, which vests exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers occupying positions corresponding to a salary grade below “27” — including those committed in relation to office — in the proper regional trial court or lower court, is a substantive procedural law that may be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of its effectivity. Moreover, for the Sandiganbayan to acquire exclusive jurisdiction under P.D. No. 1606, as amended, the information must allege the specific facts demonstrating the intimate relation between the offender’s office and the discharge of official duties; a bare allegation that the crime was committed “in relation to office” is a mere conclusion of law and is insufficient.

Upon being apprised of the petitioner’s warrant of arrest and the RTC’s preventive suspension order, the PNP General Headquarters issued Special Order No. 91 on October 6, 1992, preventively suspending petitioner Arnel Escobal from the service pending termination of the criminal case. Escobal subsequently sought reinstatement after serving a 90-day suspension, but the RTC declined to lift the order.

• Nature: Petitioner Arnel Escobal, a graduate of the Philippine Military Academy and a member of the Armed Forces, the Philippine Constabulary, and the Intelligence Group of the Philippine National Police, held the rank of Police Senior Inspector with salary grade “23.” He was charged with murder in an amended Information filed on February 6, 1991 in the RTC of Naga City, Branch 21, for the killing of Rodney Rafael N. Nueca on March 16, 1990. The Information alleged conspiracy with Natividad Bombita, Jr. and claimed the victim’s mother suffered actual, moral, and exemplary damages.

• The Incident: On March 16, 1990, Escobal was at the Sa Harong Café Bar and Restaurant along Barlin St., Naga City. The prosecution later maintained, based on evidence adduced during the trial, that the shooting occurred just after midnight; Escobal was not in uniform, was drunk, and was in the company of civilians inside the beerhouse.

• Petitioner’s Defense: Escobal countered that on the evening of March 15, 1990, he was at the establishment to conduct surveillance on alleged drug trafficking, acting under Mission Order No. 03-04 issued by Police Superintendent Rufo R. Pulido. He presented sworn statements of Benjamin Cariño and Roberto Fajardo corroborating his claim of being on a surveillance mission. He also cited an admission by the victim’s mother, Luz Nacario Nueca, in a complaint she filed before the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) that Escobal was on an official mission at the time of the shooting.

• Trial Court’s Shifting Determinations: During the preliminary hearing ordered by the RTC to resolve the jurisdictional question, the prosecution relied on its rested evidence to argue Escobal was not acting in relation to his office. Escobal himself testified and presented corroborating evidence. The trial court issued an Order on July 31, 1995 finding the offense was not committed in the performance of official duties and ordering the Information amended to so state. Upon reconsideration, the RTC issued a volte face on November 24, 1995, reversing itself and declaring that the offense was committed in relation to Escobal’s functions as a member of the Philippine Constabulary. It ordered the filing of a Re-Amended Information reflecting that nexus and the consequent transmittal of the complete records to the Sandiganbayan.

• Sandiganbayan Remand: The Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan, noting that R.A. No. 7975 (effective May 6, 1995) was already in force at the time of the RTC’s November 1995 Order and that Escobal’s salary grade was “23” (below the grade “27” threshold), ordered the records returned to the RTC for continuation of trial under the continuity of jurisdiction rule, as the prosecution had already rested and the defense had begun presenting evidence.

• Exclusive Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction under Old Law: Petitioner maintained that the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction over the murder charge under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, because the offense was committed in the performance of his duties and carried the penalty of reclusion temporal.

• Non-Retroactivity of R.A. No. 7975: Petitioner argued that R.A. No. 7975, which transferred jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers with salary grade below “27” to the regular courts, should not be given retroactive effect. He invoked Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975, asserting that the law requires only cases where trial had not begun in the Sandiganbayan upon its effectivity to be referred to the proper trial court, a condition not met here because trial had already commenced in the RTC.

• Failure to Consider Exceptions and Admissions: Petitioner contended that the trial court erroneously disregarded the admission of complainant Luz Nacario Nueca in her PLEB complaint that he was on an official mission, and that it failed to apply exceptions to the prohibition or legal bars to prosecution in connection with official duties.

• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 7975: The Office of the Special Prosecutor countered that the Presiding Justice acted in conformity with law when he ordered the remand. It argued that while the Sandiganbayan may have had jurisdiction over the crime when the Information was filed in 1991 under P.D. No. 1606, R.A. No. 7975 had taken effect by the time the RTC resolved the jurisdictional motion on July 31, 1995, and the law should be applied retroactively as it pertains to substantive procedural rights and jurisdiction over pending cases.

• Jurisdiction and R.A. No. 7975: Whether the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in ordering the remand of Criminal Case No. 90-3184 to the RTC, given that the petitioner was a PNP officer with salary grade “23” and R.A. No. 7975 had become effective during the pendency of the case.

• Retroactivity of R.A. No. 7975: Whether R.A. No. 7975 may be applied retroactively to a criminal case already pending trial in the RTC at the time of its effectivity.

• Jurisdiction and R.A. No. 7975: The Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan acted in accordance with law and prevailing rulings. The original amended Information filed with the RTC contained no factual allegation establishing the intimate relation between the petitioner’s office and the discharge of his duties; it merely stated that the offense was committed “in relation to office,” which is a conclusion of law insufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan under P.D. No. 1606 as amended by P.D. No. 1861. Additionally, even had such facts been properly pleaded, R.A. No. 7975 was already in effect at the time the RTC ordered transmittal to the Sandiganbayan on November 24, 1995. Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975 vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the proper RTC, MTC, or MCTC over cases where none of the principal accused occupy positions corresponding to salary grade “27” or higher, or are PNP officers with the rank of superintendent or higher, regardless of whether the offense was committed in relation to office. Since Escobal held a salary grade of “23” and was charged with homicide punishable by reclusion temporal, the RTC of Naga City properly retained exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691.

• Retroactivity of R.A. No. 7975: R.A. No. 7975 is correctly classified as a substantive procedural law, and as such may be applied retroactively to pending cases. The general rule that jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the commencement of the action admits of an exception where the later statute, like R.A. No. 7975, is procedural in character or expressly provides for retroactive application. The effectivity of R.A. No. 7975 on May 6, 1995 meant that at the time the RTC resolved the jurisdictional issue and ordered elevation to the Sandiganbayan in November 1995, the amendatory law had already withdrawn Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over the offense and conferred it exclusively upon the RTC. The petitioner’s reliance on Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975 was unavailing, as that provision pertains to the transfer of cases where trial had not begun in the Sandiganbayan and was inapplicable to a case that had always remained before the RTC.

• Jurisdiction Determined by Information Allegations — In criminal cases, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information and the law in effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless the subsequent statute provides for retroactivity. For the Sandiganbayan to acquire exclusive jurisdiction under P.D. No. 1606 over crimes committed by public officers “in relation to office,” the information must specifically allege the facts demonstrating the intimate connection between the offense and the discharge of official duties; a mere statement that the accused committed the crime “in relation to office” is a bare conclusion of law and does not suffice.

• Continuity of Jurisdiction — The jurisdiction of a court, once acquired at the inception of the case, continues until the case is finally terminated by the rendition of judgment.

• Retroactive Application of Procedural Law — R.A. No. 7975, amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, is a substantive procedural law and may be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of its effectivity.

• Salary Grade Threshold for Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction — Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975, offenses committed by public officers whose positions correspond to a salary grade below “27,” or by PNP officers below the rank of superintendent, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, or municipal circuit trial court, regardless of whether the offense was committed in relation to office.

• “The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the Information or the Complaint and the statute in effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. The jurisdictional requirements 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.”

• “It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law which may be applied retroactively.”

• Republic v. Asuncion, et al., 231 SCRA 211 (1994) — Invoked by the petitioner and cited by the trial court for the rule that, following R.A. No. 7975, the Information must be amended to allege whether the offense was committed in relation to office and that cases falling under the lower salary grades are transferred to the regular courts; the Court followed the Asuncion framework in affirming the required amendment and transmittal procedure.

• Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999) — Relied upon for the principles that jurisdictional requirements must be pled in the information and that R.A. No. 7975, being a substantive procedural law, may be applied retroactively.

• Baritua v. Mercader, 350 SCRA 86 (2001) — Cited for the rule that the jurisdiction of a court acquired at the inception of the case continues until the case is terminated.

• Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993) — Used to illustrate the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over offenses committed by public officers in relation to office under the old P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861.

• Section 4(a), P.D. No. 1606 as amended by P.D. No. 1861 — Defined the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers in relation to office where the penalty is higher than prision correccional or a fine of ₱6,000.00. The Court held that mere allegation of “in relation to office” without factual specificity was insufficient to invoke this jurisdiction.

• Section 2, R.A. No. 7975 — Amended P.D. No. 1606 by transferring exclusive jurisdiction over offenses where the accused are public officers with salary grade below “27” or PNP officers below superintendent rank to the proper RTC, MTC, or MCTC; applied directly to vest jurisdiction in the RTC over Escobal.

• Sections 20 and 32, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Section 2, R.A. No. 7691 — Allocated exclusive original jurisdiction to the RTC over offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding six years; undergirded the conclusion that the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the charge of murder.

• Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War), Section 1, P.D. No. 1822, Section 95, R.A. No. 6975 — Earlier invoked by the petitioner in his Motion to Quash arguing for court-martial jurisdiction; not applied by the Court in the resolution of the certiorari petition.

Justice Puno (Chairman), Justice Quisumbing, Justice Austria-Martinez, and Justice Tinga concurred.