G.R. No. 116615 March 1, 1995
FERDINAND CUNANAN, petitioner, vs. HON. HERMIN E. ARCEO, as Presiding Judge of Branch 43 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga; HON. PEDRO M. SUNGA, JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 42 of San Fernando, Pampanga; and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On April 5, 1991, an Information for Murder was filed against petitioner Ferdinand Cunanan, a member of the Philippine National Police, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga. The Information contained no averment that the offense was committed in relation to his public office. Petitioner pleaded not guilty, and trial proceeded. On November 4, 1993, after the parties presented their evidence, the case was deemed submitted for decision. Subsequently, on March 11, 1994, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision in Republic v. Asuncion, which held that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office where the prescribed penalty is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years or a fine of P6,000.00. The ruling further directed that if an Information pending before an RTC at the time of the ruling’s promulgation lacked an allegation that the offense was committed in relation to office, the RTC should conduct a preliminary hearing to determine the presence or absence of this fact. If present, the case should be transferred to the Sandiganbayan; if absent, the RTC should proceed. Applying this, the presiding RTC judge, Judge Arceo, conducted a hearing and found, based on the trial evidence, that petitioner committed the offense while performing his official functions as a policeman attempting to restore peace and order. Consequently, Judge Arceo issued an Order dated April 21, 1994, holding that the RTC had no jurisdiction and ordering the case forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. This order was later modified on May 23, 1994, to delete a clause dismissing the case and instead simply order the transmittal of the complete records to the Sandiganbayan as if originally filed there. After Judge Arceo inhibited himself, the case was raffled to Judge Sunga, who denied petitioner’s opposition to the transfer. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that jurisdiction was fixed by the Information’s lack of the requisite averment, that the Asuncion ruling was inapplicable as trial had already been completed, and that the transfer would expose him to double jeopardy, contending that the initial order dismissing the case amounted to an acquittal.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondent RTC judges correctly applied the doctrine laid down in Republic v. Asuncion by ordering the transfer of Criminal Case No. 5708 to the Sandiganbayan after determining, post-trial, that the offense was committed in relation to petitioner’s public office, despite the Information’s lack of such an averment and notwithstanding that the case was already submitted for decision.

RULING

Yes, the public respondent RTC judges correctly applied the Asuncion doctrine. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the assailed orders. The Court held that jurisdiction over an offense is conferred by law. Under P.D. No. 1606 as amended, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction when two requisites concur: (1) the offense was committed by a public officer in relation to his office, and (2) the prescribed penalty is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years or a fine of P6,000.00. The absence of an averment in the Information that the offense was committed in relation to office is immaterial to determining the locus of jurisdiction; what is controlling is whether the facts establish that the crime was indeed committed in relation to office. The Asuncion ruling was precisely crafted to address situations where the Information lacked such an allegation, by allowing a preliminary hearing to ascertain the jurisdictional fact. The RTC’s initial assumption of jurisdiction did not preclude it from later declaring a lack of jurisdiction when such lack became apparent from the evidence. The Court found that the RTC correctly determined, based on the evidence adduced during trial, that petitioner, a policeman, shot and killed the victim while in the performance of his official duty to restore public order. This finding brought the case under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Court also ruled that the transfer of the case did not place petitioner in double jeopardy. Double jeopardy requires a valid indictment before a court of competent jurisdiction, a valid plea, and the defendant’s acquittal, conviction, or dismissal without his express consent. Here, the RTC was not a court of competent jurisdiction from the moment the jurisdictional facts were established. The termination of proceedings before the RTC was due to a determination of lack of jurisdiction, not an acquittal. Therefore, the orders for transfer were not issued with grave abuse of discretion.