G.R. No. 101487 ; April 22, 2005
RAUL H. SESBREÑO, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SILVESTRE BELLO III, NORBERTO ABELLANA, RONALD ARCILLA, DEMETRIO BALICHA, FELIPE CONSTANTINO, JUAN COROMINA, LORETO DURANO, JESUS GARCIA, JOSE GARCIA, VICENTE GARCIA, ANGELITA LHUILLIER and SAMUEL NUÑEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Raul H. Sesbreño filed a series of criminal complaints before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu City against various respondents, including employees of the Visayan Electric Company (VECO), for offenses such as trespass, coercion, falsification, and theft of electricity. These complaints arose from an inspection of his residence that led to the discovery of a tampered electric meter. In turn, a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 876 (the Anti-Pilferage of Electricity Law) was filed against Sesbreño. The City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed all of Sesbreño’s complaints and instead recommended the filing of an information against him. Sesbreño sought a review of these dismissals by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which affirmed the prosecutor’s resolutions.
Sesbreño then challenged the DOJ’s affirmance before the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. He argued, among other points, that the Office of the City Prosecutor lost jurisdiction over two of the complaints (I.S. Nos. 89-2937 and 89-3711) because they involved a public officer, Sgt. Demetrio Balicha. He contended that under the law then in effect, jurisdiction over cases involving public officers was vested in the Ombudsman. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the City Prosecutor had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation and dismiss the complaints involving a public officer, Sgt. Demetrio Balicha.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court explained that jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the action. When the Court of Appeals rendered its decision on June 27, 1991, the prevailing law indeed vested jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations involving public officers with the Ombudsman. Therefore, the appellate court’s decision was legally correct at the time it was issued.
However, a supervening event—a legislative amendment—occurred during the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court. Republic Act No. 7975 , which took effect on May 6, 1995, amended the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and, consequently, the rules on preliminary investigation. Under this new law, the authority to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving public officers with a salary grade below 27 was reverted to the regular prosecutors, such as the Office of the City Prosecutor. Since this amendatory law was already in effect when the Supreme Court reviewed the case, it constituted a change in the applicable legal regime. Consequently, the joint resolution of the City Prosecutors dismissing the complaints, including those involving Sgt. Balicha, was reinstated and affirmed. The Court of Appeals decision was modified only to reflect this supervening legislation.