Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure
1. People v Binsol, L-8346, January 27, 1957
2. Austria v People, 192 SCRA 342
3. Lacson v Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298
Lacson Vs. Executive Secretary Case Digest
Lacson Vs. Executive Secretary
301 SCRA 298
G.R. No. 128096
anuary 20! 1999
"acts# Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng
gang, an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies, were slain
by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and ntelligence !ask "roup
#ABR!"$% Among those included in the ABR!" were petitioners and
petitioner-intervenors%
Acting on a media e&pose of '()* Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of
the +riminal nvestigation +ommand, that what actually transpired was a
summary e&ecution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng
gang members and the ABR!", )mbudsman Aniano ,esierto formed a
panel of investigators to investigate the said incident% 'aid panel found the
incident as a legitimate police operation% -owever, a review board modified
the panel.s finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder
against twenty-si& respondents including herein petitioner, charged as
principal, and herein petitioner-intervenors, charged as accessories% After a
reinvestigation, the )mbudsman filed amended informations before the
'andiganbayan, where petitioner was charged only as an accessory%
!he accused filed separate motions /uestioning the 0urisdiction of the
'andiganbayan, asserting that under the amended informations, the cases
fall within the 0urisdiction of the Regional !rial +ourt pursuant to 'ection *
of R%A% 1213% !hey contend that the said law limited the 0urisdiction of the
'andiganbayan to cases where one or ore of the 4principal accused5 are
government officals with 'alary "rade *1 or higher, or (6( officials with
rank of +hief 'uperintendent or higher% !hus, they did not /ualify under
said re/uisites% -owever, pending resolution of their motions, R%A% 7*82
was approved amending the 0urisdiction of the 'andiganbayan by deleting
the word 4principal5 from the phrase 4principal accused5 in 'ection * of
R%A% 1213%
(etitioner /uestions the constitutionality of 'ection 8 of R%A% 7*82,
including 'ection 1 which provides that the said law shall apply to all cases
pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval
hereof%
$ssue#
9hether or not 'ections 8 and 1 of R%A% 7*82 violate the petitioners. right
to due process and the e/ual protection clause of the +onstitution as the
provisions seemed to have been introduced for the 'andiganbayan to
continue to ac/uire 0urisdiction over the Kuratong Baleleng case%
9hether or not said statute may be considered as an e&-post facto
statute%
9hether or not the multiple murder of the alleged members of the
Kuratong Baleleng was committed in relation to the office of the accused
(6( officers which is essential to the determination whether the case falls
within the 'andiganbayan.s or Regional !rial +ourt.s 0urisdiction%
%e&'# (etitioner and intervenors. posture that 'ections 8 and 1 of R%A%
7*82 violate their right to e/ual protection of the law is too shallow to
deserve merit% 6o concrete evidence and convincing argument were
presented to warrant such a declaration% Every classification made by the
law is presumed reasonable and the party who challenges the law must
present proof of arbitrariness% !he classification is reasonable and not
arbitrary when the following concur: #;$ it must rest on substantial
distinction< #*$ it must be germane to the purpose of the law< #=$ must not
be limited to e&isting conditions only, and #8$ must apply e/ually to all
members of the same class< all of which are present in this case%
(aragraph a of 'ection 8 provides that it shall apply 4to all cases involving5
certain public officials and under the transitory provision in 'ection 1, to 4all
cases pending in any court%5 +ontrary to petitioner and intervenors.
argument, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng
cases% !he transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the
'andiganbayan but also in 4any court%5
!here is nothing e& post facto in R%A% 7*82% E& post facto law, generally,
provides retroactive effect of penal laws% R%A% 7*82 is not a penal law% t is
a substantive law on 0urisdiction which is not penal in character% (enal laws
are those acts of the >egislature which prohibit certain acts and establish
penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for
their punishment% R%A% 1213, as regards the 'andiganbayan.s 0urisdiction,
its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been declared by the
+ourt as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, one which
prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds
can properly administer 0ustice% 6ot being a penal law, the retroactive
application of R%A% 7*82 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional%
n (eople vs% ?onte0o, it was held that an offense is said to have been
committed in relation to the office if it is intimately connected with the office
of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his
official functions% 'uch intimate relation must be alleged in the information
which is essential in determining the 0urisdiction of the 'andiganbayan%
-owever, upon e&amination of the amended information, there was no
specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said
principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official
duties as police officers% >ikewise, the amended information does not
indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and
then killed the latter while in their custody% !he stringent re/uirement that
the charge set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the
e&act offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to
his office was not established%
+onse/uently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the
charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official
functions of the accused (6( officers, the offense charged in the sub0ect
criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the e&clusive original
0urisdiction of the Regional !rial +ourt and not the 'andiganbayan%
4. Ocampo, IV v Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725
5. People v Chavez, 278 SCRA 230
6. People v Esquivel, 82 Phil 453
7. People v Casey, 103 SCRA 21