Antiporda
vs. Garchitorena
G.R.
No. L-133289, 321 SCRA 551, December 23, 1999
FACTS: Petitioners were charged with the
crime of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos filed before the Sandiganbayan without claiming that one of the accused
is a public officer who took advantage of his position. The information
was amended to effectively describe the offense charged herein and for the
court to effectively exercise its jurisdiction over the same by stating that
Antiporda took advantage of his position. Accused filed a motion for new
preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance and/or recall warrant of
arrest issued. The same was denied. The accused subsequently filed a motion
to quash the amended information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged because of the amended information. This was denied as well as the MR
on the same. Hence, this petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
RULING: YES. They are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. The original Information filed with
the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense committed by the accused
is office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the prosecution
belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein. However, we hold that the petitioners
are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the
supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation
dated June 10, 1997 filed with the same court, it was they who
"challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case
and clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is
work connected.
Jurisdiction is
the power with which courts are invested for administering justice, that is,
for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to
dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties. In the
case of Arula vs. Espino it was quite clear that all three requisites, i.e.,
jurisdiction over the offense, territory and person, must concur before a
court can acquire jurisdiction to try a case. It is undisputed that the
Sandiganbayan had territorial jurisdiction over the case. And we are in
accord with the petitioners when they contended that when they filed a motion
to quash it was tantamount to a voluntary submission to the Court's
authority.
|