Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999
PANFILO M. LACSON, !"#"#on!r,
vs.
T$E E%ECUTI&E SECRETAR', T$E SAN(IGAN)A'AN, OFFICE OF T$E SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
T$E (EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, M'RNA A)ALORA, NENITA ALAP*AP, IMEL(A PANC$O
MONTERO, an+ T$E PEOPLE OF T$E P$ILIPPINES, respondent.
ROMEO M. ACOP AN( FRANCISCO G. ,U)IA, JR., petitioner-intervenors.

MARTINE,, J.:
The constitutionality of Sections and ! of Republic Act No. "#$ % an act &hich further defines the
'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan % is bein( challen(ed in this petition for prohibition and mandamus.
Petitioner Panfilo )acson* 'oined by petitioners-intervenors Ro+eo Acop and ,rancisco -ubia* .r.* also
see/s to prevent the Sandi(anbayan fro+ proceedin(s &ith the trial of Cri+inal Cases Nos. #01!-#012!
3for +ultiple +urder4 a(ainst the+ on the (round of lac/ of 'urisdiction.
The antecedents of this case* as (athered fro+ the parties5 pleadin(s and docu+entary proofs* are as
follo&s6
7n the early +ornin( of May 8"* 8$$2* eleven 3884 persons believed to be +e+bers of the 9uraton(
Balelen( (an(* reportedly an or(ani:ed cri+e syndicate &hich had been involved in a spate of ban/
robberies in Metro Manila* &here slain alon( Co++on&ealth Avenue in ;ue:on City by ele+ents of the
Anti-Ban/ Robbery and 7ntelli(ence Tas/ <roup 3ABR7T<4 headed by Chieff Superintendent .e&el
Canson of the Philippine National Police 3PNP4. The ABR7T< &as co+posed of police officers fro+ the
Traffic Mana(e+ent Co++and 3TMC4 led by petitioner-intervenor Senior Superintendent ,rancisco
-ubia* .r.= Presidential Anti-Cri+e Co++ission % Tas/ ,orce >aba(at 3PACC-T,>4 headed by petitioner
Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. )acson= Central Police ?istrict Co++and 3CP?C4 led by Chief
Superintendent Ricardo de )eon= and the Cri+inal 7nvesti(ation Co++and 3C7C4 headed by petitioner-
intervenor Chief Superintendent Ro+eo Acop.
Actin( on a +edia e@pose of SPA# Eduardo delos Reyes* a +e+ber of the C7C* that &hat actually
transpired at da&n of May 8"* 8$$2 &as a su++ary e@ecution 3or a rub out4 and not a shoot-out bet&een
the 9uraton( Balelen( (an( +e+bers and the ABR7T<* A+buds+an Aniano ?esierto for+ed a panel of
investi(ators headed by the ?eputy A+buds+an for Military Affairs* Bienvenido Blancaflor* to investi(ate
the incident. This panel later absolved fro+ any cri+inal liability all the PNP officers and personal
alle(edly involved in May 8"* 8$$2 incident* &ith a findin( that the said incident &as a le(iti+ate police
operation.
1
>o&ever* a revie& board led by Averall ?eputy A+buds+an ,rancisco Billa +odified +odified the
Blancaflor panel5s findin( and reco++ended the indict+ent for +ultiple +urder a(ainst t&enty-si@ 3#C4
respondents* includin( herein petitioner and intervenors. The reco++endation &as approved by the
A+buds+an e@cept for the &ithdra&al of the char(es a(ainst Chief Supt. Ricardo de )eon.
Thus* on Nove+ber #* 8$$2* petitioner Panfilo )acson &as a+on( those char(ed as principal in eleven
3884 infor+ation for +urder
2
before the Sandi(anbayan5s Second ?ivision* &hile intervenors Ro+eo Acop
and ,rancisco -ubia* .r. &ere a+on( those char(ed in the sa+e infor+ations as accessories after-in-the-
fact.
Dpon +otion by all the accused in the 88 infor+ation*
-
the Sandi(anbayan allo&ed the+ to file a +otion
for reconsideration of the A+buds+an5s action.
.
After conductin( a reinvesti(ation* the A+buds+an filed on March 8* 8$$C eleven 3884 a+ended
infor+ations
/
before the Sandi(anbayan* &herein petitioner &as char(ed only as an accessory* to(ether
&ith Ro+eo Acop and ,rancisco -ubia* .r. and other. Ane of the accused
6
&as dropped fro+ the case.
An March 2-C* 8$$C* all the accused filed separate +otions Euestionin( the 'urisdiction of the
Sandi(anbayan* assertin( that under the a+ended infor+ations* the cases fall &ithin the 'urisdiction of
the Re(ional Trial Court pursuant to Section # 3para(raphs a and c4 of Republic Act No. !$!2.
0
They
contend that the said la& li+ited the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan to cases &here one or +ore of the
Fprincipal accusedF are (overn+ent officials &ith Salary <rade 3S<4 #! or hi(her* or PNP officials &ith the
ran/ of Chief Superintendent 3Bri(adier <eneral4 or hi(her. The hi(hest ran/in( principal accused in the
a+ended infor+ations has the ran/ of only a Chief 7nspector* and none has the eEuivalent of at least S<
#!.
Thereafter* in a Resolution
8
dated May "* 8$$C 3pro+ul(ated on May $* 8$$C4* penned by .ustice
?e+etriou* &ith .ustices )a(+an and de )eon concurrin(* and .ustices Bala'adia and <architorena
dissentin(*
9
the Sandi(anbayan ad+itted the a+ended infor+ation and ordered the cases transferred to
the ;ue:on City Re(ional Trial Court &hich has ori(inal and e@clusive 'urisdiction under R.A. !$!2* as
none of the principal accused has the ran/ of Chief Superintendent or hi(her.
An May 8!* 8$$C* the Affice of the Special Prosecutor +oved for a reconsideration* insistin( that the
cases should re+ain &ith the Sandi(anbayan. This &as opposed by petitioner and so+e of the accused.
Ghile these +otions for reconsideration &ere pendin( resolution* and even before the issue of 'urisdiction
cropped up &ith the filin( of the a+ended infor+ations on March 8* 8$$C* >ouse Bill No. ##$$
10
and No.
81$
11
3sponsored by Representatives Edcel C. )a(+an and )a(+an and Neptali M. <on:ales 77*
respectively4* as &ell as Senate Bill No. "
12
3sponsored by Senator Neptali <on:ales4* &ere introduced
in Con(ress* definin( e@pandin( the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan. Specifically* the said bills sou(ht*
a+on( others* to a+end the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan by deletin( the &ord FprincipalF fro+ the
phrase Fprincipal accusedF in Section # 3para(raphs a and c4 of R.A. No. !$!2.
These bills &ere consolidated and later approved into la& as R.A. No. "#$
1-
by the President of the
Philippines on ,ebruary 2* 8$$!.
SubseEuently* on March 2* 8$$!* the Sandi(anbayan pro+ul(ated a Resolution
1.
denyin( the +otion for
reconsideration of the Special Prosecutor* rulin( that it Fstands pat in its resolution dated May "* 8$$C.F
An the sa+e day
1/
the Sandi(anbayan issued and A??EN?DM to its March 2* 8$$! Resolution* the
pertinent portion of &hich reads6
After .ustice )a(+an &rote the Resolution and .ustice ?e+etriou concurred in it* but
before .ustice de )eon. .r. rendered his concurrin( and dissentin( opinion* the le(islature
enacted Republic Act "#$ and the President of the Philippines approved it on ,ebruary
2* 8$$!. Considerin( the pertinent provisions of the ne& la&* .ustices )a(+an and
?e+etriou are no& in favor of (rantin(* as they are no& (rantin(* the Special
Prosecutor5s +otion for reconsideration. .ustice de )eon has already done so in his
concurrin( and dissentin( opinion.
@@@ @@@ @@@
Considerin( that three of the accused in each of these cases are PNP Chief
Superintendents6 na+ely* .e&el T. Canson* Ro+eo M. Acop and Panfilo M. )acson* and
that trial has not yet be(un in all these cases % in fact* no order of arrest has been
issued % this court has co+petence to ta/e co(ni:ance of these cases.
To recapitulate* the net result of all the fore(oin( is that by the vote of 0 of #* the court
ad+itted the A+ended 7nfor+ations in these cases by the unani+ous vote of &ith 8
neither concurrin( not dissentin(* retained 'urisdiction to try and decide the cases
16

3E+pahasis supplied4
Petitioner no& Euestions the constitutionality of Section of R.A. No. "#$* includin( Section ! thereof
&hich provides that the said la& Fshall apply to all cases pendin( in any court over &hich trial has not
be(un as to the approval hereof.F Petitioner ar(ues that6
a4 The Euestioned provisions of the statute &ere introduced by the authors thereof in bad
faith as it &as +ade to precisely suit the situation in &hich petitioner5s cases &ere in at
the Sandi(anbayan by restorin( 'urisdiction thereof to it* thereby violatin( his ri(ht to
procedural due process and the eEual protection clause of the Constitution. ,urther* fro+
the &ay the Sandi(anbayan has foot-dra((ed for nine 3$4 +onths the resolution of a
pendin( incident involvin( the transfer of the cases to the Re(ional Trial Court* the
passa(e of the la& +ay have been ti+ed to overta/e such resolution to render the issue
therein +oot* and frustrate the e@ercise of petitioner5s vested ri(hts under the old
Sandi(anbayan la& 3RA !$!24
b4 Retroactive application of the la& is plan fro+ the fact that it &as a(ain +ade to suit
the peculiar circu+stances in &hich petitioner5s cases &ere under* na+ely* that the trial
had not yet co++enced* as provided in Section !* to +a/e certain that those cases &ill
no lon(er be re+anded to the ;ue:on City Re(ional Trial Court* as the Sandi(anbayan
alone should try the+* thus +a/in( it an ex post facto le(islation and a denial of the ri(ht
of petitioner as an accused in Cri+inal Case Nos. #01!-#012! to procedural due
process.
c4 The title of the la& is +isleadin( in that it contains the aforesaid FinnocuousF provisions
in Sections and ! &hich actually e@pands rather than defines the old Sandi(anbayan
la& 3RA !$!24* thereby violatin( the one-title one-sub'ect reEuire+ent for the passa(e of
statutes under Section #C 384* Article B7 of the Constitution.
10
,or their part* the intervenors* in their petition-in-intervention* add that F&hile Republic Act No. "#$
innocuously appears to have +erely e@panded the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan* the introduction of
Section and ! in said statute i+pressed upon it the character of a class le(islation and an ex-post facto
statute intended to apply specifically to the accused in the 9uraton( Balelen( case pendin( before the
Sandi(anbayan.
18
They further ar(ued that if their case is tried before the Sandi(anbayan their ri(ht to
procedural due process &ould be violated as they could no lon(er avail of the t&o-tiered appeal to the
Sandi(anbayan* &hich they acEuired under R.A. !$!2* before recourse to the Supre+e Court.
Both the Affice of the A+buds+an and the Solicitor-<eneral filed separate pleadin(s in support of the
constitutionality of the challen(ed provisions of the la& in Euestion and prayin( that both the petition and
the petition-in-intervention be dis+issed.
This Court then issued a Resolution
19
reEuirin( the parties to file si+ultaneously &ithin a none@tendible
period of ten 3814 days fro+ notice thereof additional +e+oranda on the Euestion of &hether the sub'ect
a+ended infor+ations filed a Cri+inal Case Nos. #01!-#012! sufficiently alle(e the co++ission by the
accused therein of the cri+e char(ed &ithin the +eanin( Section b of Republic Act No. "#$* so as to
brin( the said cases &ithin the e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan.
The parties* e@cept for the Solicitor <eneral &ho is representin( the People of the Philippines* filed the
reEuired supple+ental +e+orandu+ &ithin the none@tendible re(le+entary period.
The established rule is that every la& has in its favor the presu+ption of constitutionality* and to 'ustify its
nullification there +ust be a clear and uneEuivocal breach of the Constitution* not a doubtful and
ar(u+entative one.
20
The burden of provin( the invalidity of the la& lies &ith those &ho challen(e it. That
burden* &e re(ret to say* &as not convincin(ly dischar(ed in the present case.
The creation of the Sandi(anbayn &as +andated in Section 2* Article H777 of the 8$!0 Constitution* &hich
provides6
Sec. 2. The Batasan( Pa+bansa shall create a special court* to be /no&n as
Sandi(anbayan* &hich shall have 'urisdiction over cri+inal and civil cases involvin( (raft
and corrupt practices and such other offenses co++itted by public officers and
e+ployees includin( those in (overn+ent-o&ned or controlled corporations* in relation to
their office as +ay be deter+ined by la&.
The said special court is retained in the ne& 38$"!4 Constitution under the follo&in( provisions in Article
H7* Section 6
Sec. . The present anti-(raft court /no&n as the Sandi(anbayan shall continue to
function and e@ercise its 'urisdiction as no& or hereafter +ay be provided by la&.
Pursuant to the constitutional +andate* Presidential ?ecree No. 8"C
21
created the Sandi(anbayan.
Thereafter* the follo&in( la&s on the Sandi(anbayan* in chronolo(ical order* &ere enacted6 P.?. No.
8C1C*
22
Section #1 of Batas Pa+bansa Bl(. 8#0*
2-
P.?. No. 8"C1*
2.
P.?. No. 8"C8*
2/
R.A. No. !$!2*
26

and R.A. No. "#$.
20
Dnder the latest a+end+ents introduced by Section of R.A. No. "#$* the
Sandi(anbayan has 'urisdiction over the follo&in( cases6
Sec . Section of the sa+e decree IP.?. No. 8C1C* as a+endedJ is hereby further
a+ended to read as follo&s6
Sec. . .urisdiction % The Sandi(anbayan shall e@ercise e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction in
all cases involvin(6
a. Biolations of Republic Act No. 018$* as a+ended* other&ise /no&n as the Anti-<raft
and Corrupt Practices Act* Republic Act No. 80!$* and Chapter 77* Section #* Titile B77*
Boo/ 77 of the Revised Penal Code* &here one or more of the accused are officials
occupyin( the follo&in( positions in the (overn+ent* &hether in a per+anent* actin( or
interi+ capacity* at the ti+e of the co++ission of the offense6
384 Afficials of the e@ecutive branch occupyin( the positions of re(ional director and
hi(her* other&ise classified as <rade F#!F and hi(her* of the Co+pensation and Position
Classification Act of 8$"$ 3Republic Act No. C!2"4* specifically includin(6
3a4 Provincial (overnors* vice-(overnors* +e+bers of the san((unian(
panlala&i(an* and provincial treasurers* assessors* en(ineers* and other
provincial depart+ent heads=
3b4 City +ayors* vice-+ayors* +e+bers of the san((unian( panlun(sod*
city treasurers* assessors* en(ineers* and other city depart+ent heads=
3c4 Afficials of the diplo+atic service occupyin( the position of consul and
hi(her=
3d4 Philippine Ar+y and air force colonels* naval captains* and all officers
of hi(her ran/=
3e4 Afficers of the Philippines National Police &hile occupyin( the
position of provincial director and those holdin( the ran/ of senior
superintendent or higher.
3f4 City of provincial prosecutors and their assistants* and officials and
prosecutors in the Affice of the A+buds+an and special prosecutor=
3(4 Presidents* directors or trustees or +ana(ers of (overn+ent-o&ned
or controlled corporations* state universities or educational institutions or
foundations=
3#4 Me+bers of Con(ress or officials thereof classified as-<rade F#!F and up under the
Co+pensation and Position Classification Act of 8$"$=
304 Me+bers of the 'udiciary &ithout pre'udice to the provisions of the Constitution=
34 Chair+an and +e+bers of the Constitutional Co++issions* &ithout pre'udice to the
provisions of the Constitution=
324 All other national and local officials classified as <rade F#!F or hi(her under the
Co+pensation and Position Classification Act of 8$"$.
b. Other offenses or felonies &hether si+ple or co+ple@ed &ith other cri+es co++itted
by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection a of this section in relation
to their office.
c. Civil and cri+inal cases filed pursuant to and connection &ith E@ecutive Arders Nos.
8*#* 8 and 8-A* issued in 8$"C.
7n cases &here none of the accused are occupyin( positions correspondin( to salary
<rade F#!F or hi(her* as prescribed in the said Republic Act C!2"* or +ilitary and PNP
officers +entioned above* e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
proper re(ional trial court* +etropolitan trial court* +unicipal trial court* and +unicipal
circuit trial court* as the case +ay be* pursuant to their 'urisdictions as privided in Batas
Pa+bansa Bl(. 8#$* as a+ended.
The Sandi(anbayan shall e@ercise e@clusive appellate 'urisdiction over final 'ud(+ents*
resolutions or orders of re(ional trial courts &hether in the e@ercise of their o&n ori(inal
'urisdiction or of their appellate 'urisdiction as herein provided.
The Sandi(anbayan shall have e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction over petitions of the
issuance of the &rits of +anda+us* prohibition* certiorari* habeas corpus* in'unctions*
and other ancillary &rits and processes in aid of its appellate 'urisdiction and over
petitions of si+ilar nature* includin( quo warranto* arisin( or that +ay arise in cases filed
or &hich +ay be filed under E@ecutive Arder Nos. 8* #* 8 and 8-A* issued in 8$"C6
Provided* That the 'urisdiction over these petitions shall not be e@clusive of the Supre+e
Court.
The procedure prescribed in Batas Pa+bansa Bl(. 8#$* as &ell as the i+ple+entin(
rules that the Supre+e Court has pro+ul(ated and +ay hereafter pro+ul(ate* relative to
appealsKpetitions for revie& to the Court of Appeals* shall apply to appeals and petitions
for revie& filed &ith the Sandi(anbayan. 7n all cases elevated to the Sandi(anbayan and
fro+ the Sandi(anbayan to the Supre+e Court* the Affice of the A+buds+an* throu(h its
special prosecutor* shall represent the People of the Philippines* e@cept in cases filed
pursuant to E@ecutive Arder Nos. 8* #* 8* and -A* issued in 8$"C.
7n case private individuals are char(ed as co-principals* acco+plices or accessories &ith
the public officers or e+ployee* includin( those e+ployed in (overn+ent-o&ned or
controlled corporations* they shall be tried 'ointly &ith said public officers and e+ployees
in the proper courts &hich shall e@ercise e@clusive 'urisdiction over the+.
@@@ @@@ @@@ 3E+phasis supplied4
Sec. ! of R.A. No. "#$ states6
Sec. !. Transitory provision % This act shall apply to all cases pendin( in any court over
&hich trial has not be(un as of the approval hereof. 3E+phasis supplied4
The Sandi(anbayan la& prior to R.A. "#$ &as R.A. !$!2. Section # of R.A. !$!2 provides6
Sec. #. Section of the sa+e decree IPresidential ?ecree No. 8C1C* as a+ended4 is
hereby further a+ended to read as follo&s6
Sec . .urisdiction % The Sandi(anbayan shall e@ercise e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction in
all cases involvin(6
a. Biolations of Republic Act No. 018$* as a+ended* other&ise /no&n as the Anti-<raft
and Corrupt Practices Act* Republic Act No. 80!$* and Chapter 77* Section #* Title B77*
Boo/ 77 of the Revised Penal Code* &here one or more of the pricipal accused are
afficials occupyin( the follo&in( positions in the (overn+ent* &hether in a per+anent*
actin( or interi+ capacity* at the ti+e of the co++ission of the offense6
384 Afficials of the e@ecutive branch occupyin( the positions of re(ional director and
hi(her* other&ise classified as <rade F#!F and hi(her* of the Co+pensation and Position
Classification Act of 8$"$ 3Republic Act No. C!2"4* specifically includin(6
3a4 Provincial (overnors* vice-(overnors* +e+bers of the san((unian(
panlala&i(an* and provincial treasurers* assessors* en(ineer* and other
provincial depart+ent heads=
3b4 City +ayors* vice-+ayors* +e+bers of the san((unian( panlun(sod*
city treasurers* assessors* en(ineers* and other city depart+ent heads=
3c4 Afficials of the diplo+atic service occupyin( the position of consul and
hi(her=
3d4 Philippine Ar+y and air force colonels* naval captains* and all officers
of hi(her ran/=
3e4 PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of hi(her ran/=
3f4 City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants* and officials and
prosecutors in the Affice of the A+buds+an and special prosecutor=
3(4 Presidents* directors or trustees* or +ana(ers of (overn+ent-o&ned
or controlled corporations* state universities or educational institutions or
foundations=
3#4 Me+bers of Con(ress or officials thereof classified as <rade F#!F and up under the
Co+pensation and Position Classification Act of 8$"$=
304 Me+bers of the 'udiciary &ithout pre'udice to the provisions of the Constitution=
34 Chair+an and +e+bers of the Constitutional Co++issions* &ithout pre'udice to the
provisions of the Constitution=
324 All other national and local officials classified as <rade F#!F or hi(her under the
Co+pensation and Position Classification Act of 8$"$.
b. Ather offenses or felonies co++itted by the public officials and e+ployees +entioned
in Subsection a of this section in relation to their office.
c. Civil and cri+inal cases files pursuant to and in connection &ith E@ecutive Arder Nos.
8* #* 8* and -A.
7n cases &here none of the principal accused are occupyin( positions correspondin( to
salary <rade F#!F or hi(her* as presribed in the said Republic Act C!2"* or PNP officers
occupyin( the ran/ of superintendent or hi(her* or their eEuivalent* e@clusive 'urisdiction
thereof shall be vested in the proper re(ional trial court* +etropolitan trial court* +unicipal
trial court* and +unicipal circuit trial court* as the case +ay be* pursuant to their
respective 'urisdictions as provided in Batas Pa+bansa Bl(. 8#$.
The Sandi(anbayan shall e@ercise e@clusive appellate 'urisdiction on appelas fro+ the
final 'ud(+ent* resolutions or orders of re(ular court &here all the accused are occupyin(
positions lo&er than (rade F#!*F or not other&ise covered by the precedin( enu+eration.
@@@ @@@ @@@
7n case private individuals are char(ed as co-principals* acco+plices or accessories &ith
the public officers or e+ployees* includin( those e+ployed in (overn+ent-o&ned or
controlled corporations* they shall be tried 'ointly &ith said public officers and e+ployees
in the proper courts &hich shall have e@clusive 'urisdiction over the+.
@@@ @@@ @@@ 3E+phasis supplied4
Sec. ! of R.A. No. !$!2 reads6
Sec. !. Dpon the effectivity of this Act* all cri+inal cases in &hich trial has not be(un in
the Sandi(anbayan shall be referred to the proper courts.
Dnder para(raphs a and c* Section of R.A. "#$* the &ord FprincipalF before the &ord FaccusedF
appearin( in the above-Euoted Section # 3para(raphs a and c4 of R.A. !$!2* &as deleted. 7t is due to this
deletion of the &ord FprincipalF that the parties herein are at lo((erheads over the 'urisdiction of the
Sandi(anbayan. Petitioner and intervenors* relyin( on R.A. !$!2* ar(ue that the Re(ional Trial Court* not
the Sandi(anbayan* has 'urisdiction over the sub'ect cri+inal cases since none of the principal accused
under the a+ended infor+ation has the ran/ of Superintendent
28
or hi(her. An the other hand* the Affice
of the A+buds+an* throu(h the Special Prosecutor &ho is tas/ed to represent the People before the
Supre+e Court e@cept in certain cases*
29
contends that the Sandi(anbayan has 'urisdiction pursuant to
R.A. "#$.
A perusal of the aforeEuoted Section of R.A. "#$ reveals that to fall under the e@clusive ori(inal
'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan* the follo&in( reEuisites +ust concur6 384 the offense co++itted is a
violation of 3a4 R.A. 018$* as a+ended 3the Anti-<raft and Corrupt Practices Act4* 3b4 R.A. 80!$ 3the la&
on ill-(otten &ealth4* 3c4 Chapter 77* Section #* Title B77* Boo/ 77 of the Revised Penal Code 3the la& on
bribery4*
-0
3d4 E@ecutive Arder Nos. 8* #* 8* and 8-A* issued in 8$"C 3seEuestration cases4*
-1
or 3e4
other offenses or felonies &hether si+ple or co+ple@ed &ith other cri+es= 3#4 the offender co+ittin( the
offenses in ite+s 3a4* 3b4* 3c4 and 3e4 is a public official or e+ployee
-2
holdin( any of the positions
enu+erated in para(raph a of Section = and 304 the offense co++itted is in relation to the office.
Considerin( that herein petitioner and intervenors are bein( char(ed &ith +urder &hich is a felony
punishable under Title B777 of the Revised Penal Code* the (overnin( on the 'urisdictional offense is not
para(raph a but para(raph b* Section of R.A. "#$. This para(raph b pertains to Fother offenses or
felonies &hether si+ple or co+ple@ed &ith other cri+es co++itted by the public officials and e+ployees
+entioned in subsection a of 3Section * R.A. "#$4 in relation to their office. FThe phraseF other offenses
or feloniesF is too broad as to include the cri+e of +urder* provided it &as co++itted in relation to the
accused5s officials functions. Thus* under said para(raph b* &hat deter+ines the Sandi(anbayan5s
'urisdiction is the official position or ran/ of the offender % that is* &hether he is one of those public
officers or e+ployees enu+erated in para(raph a of Section . The offenses +entioned in par(raphs a* b
and c of the sa+e Section do not +a/e any reference to the cri+inal participation of the accused public
officer as to &hether he is char(ed as a principal* acco+plice or accessory. 7n enactin( R.A. "#$* the
Con(ress si+ply restored the ori(inal provisions of P.?. 8C1C &hich does not +ention the cri+inal
participation of the public officer as a reEuisite to deter+ine the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan.
Petitioner and entervenors5 posture that Section and ! of R.A. "#$ violate their ri(ht to eEual protection
of the la&
--
because its enact+ent &as particularly directed only to the 9uraton( Balelen( cases in the
Sandi(anbayan* is a contention too shallo& to deserve +erit. No concrete evidence and convincin(
ar(u+ent &ere presented to &arrant a declaration of an act of the entire Con(ress and si(ned into la& by
the hi(hest officer of the co-eEual e@ecutive depart+ent as unconstitutional. Every classification +ade by
la& is presu+ed reasonable. Thus* the party &ho challen(es the la& +ust present proof of arbitrariness.

-.
7t is an established precept in constitutional la& that the (uaranty of the eEual protection of the la&s is not
violated by a le(islation based on reasonable classification. The classification is reasonable and not
arbitrary &hen there is concurrence of four ele+ents* na+ely6
384 it +ust rest on substantial distinction=
3#4 it +ust be (er+ane to the purpose of the la&=
304 +ust not be li+ited to e@istin( conditions only* and
34 +ust apply eEualy to all +e+bers of the sa+e class*
-/
all of &hich are present in this case.
The challen(ers of Sections and ! of R.A. "#$ failed to rebut the presu+ption of constitutionality and
reasonables of the Euestioned provisions. The classification bet&een those pendin( cases involvin( the
concerned public officials &hose trial has not yet co++ence and &hose cases could have been affected
by the a+end+ents of the Sandi(anbayan 'urisdiction under R.A. "#$* as a(ainst those cases &here
trial had already started as of the approval of the la&* rests on substantial distinction that +a/es real
differences.
-6
7n the first instance* evidence a(ainst the+ &ere not yet presented* &hereas in the latter
the parties had already sub+itted their respective proofs* e@a+ined &itnesses and presented docu+ents.
Since it is &ithin the po&er of Con(ress to define the 'urisdiction of courts sub'ect to the constitutional
li+itations*
-0
it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of that 'urisdiction &ould necessarily affect
pendin( cases* &hich is &hy it has to privide for a re+edy in the for+ of a transitory provision. Thus*
petitioner and intervenors cannot no& clai+ that Sections and ! placed the+ under a different cate(ory
fro+ those si+ilarly situated as the+. Precisely* para(raph a of Section provides that it shall apply to Fall
case involvin(F certain public officials and* under the transitory provision in Section !* to Fall cases
pendin( in any court.F Contrary to petitioner and intervenors5 ar(u+ent* the la& is not particularly directed
only to the 9uraton( Balelen( cases. The transitory provision does not only cover cases &hich are in the
Sandi(anbayan but also in Fany court.F 7t 'ust happened that 9uraton( Balelen( cases are one of those
affected by the la&. Moreover* those cases &here trial had already be(un are not affected by the
transitory provision under Section ! of the ne& la& 3R.A. "#$4.
7n their futile atte+pt to have said sections nullified* heavy reliance is pre+ised on &hat is perceived as
bad faith on the part of a Senator and t&o .ustices of the Sandi(anbaya
-8
for their participation in the
passa(e of the said provisions. 7n particular* it is stressed that the Senator had e@pressed stron(
senti+ents a(ainst those officials involved in the 9uraton( Balelen( cases durin( the hearin(s conducted
on the +atter by the co++ittee headed by the Senator. Petitioner further contends that the le(islature is
biased a(ainst hi+ as he clai+s to have been selected fro+ a+on( the C! +illion other ,ilipinos as the
ob'ect of the deletion of the &ord FprincipalF in para(raph a* Section of P.?. 8C1C* as a+ended* and of
the transitory provision of R.A. "#$.
-9
R.A "#$* &hile still a bill* &as acted* deliberated* considered by
#0 other Senators and by about #21 Representatives* and &as separately approved by the Senate and
>ouse of Representatives and* finally* by the President of the Philippines.
An the perceived bias that the Sandi(anbayan .ustices alle(edly had a(ainst petitioner durin( the
co++itte hearin(s* the sa+e &ould not constitute sufficient 'ustification to nullify an other&ise valid la&.
Their presence and participation in the le(islative hearin(s &as dee+ed necessary by Con(ress since the
+atter before the co++ittee involves the (raft court of &hich one is the head of the Sandi(anbayan and
the other a +e+ber thereof. The Con(ress* in its plenary le(islative po&ers* is particularly e+po&ered by
the Constitution to invite persons to appear before it &henever it decides to conduct inEuiries in aid of
le(islation.
.0
Petitioner and entervenors further further ar(ued that the retroactive application of R.A. "#$ to the
9uraton( Balelen( cases constitutes an ex post facto la&
.1
for they are deprived of their ri(ht to
procedural due process as they can no lon(er avail of the t&o-tiered appeal &hich they had alle(edly
acEuired under R.A. !$!2.
A(ain* this contention is erroneous. There is nothin( ex post facto in R.A. "#$. 7n Calder v. Bull*
.2
an ex
post facto la& is one %
3a4 &hich +a/es an act done cri+inal before the passin( of the la& and
&hich &as innocent &hen co++itted* and punishes such action= or
3b4 &hich a((ravates a cri+e or +a/es it (reater than &hen it &as
co++itted= or
3c4 &hich chan(es the punish+ent and inflicts a (reater punish+ent than
the la& anne@ed to the cri+e &hen it &as co++itted.
3d4 &hich alters the le(al rules of evidence and recieves less or different
testi+ony that the la& reEuired at the ti+e of the co++ission of the
offense on order to convict the defendant.
.-
3e4 Every la& &hich* in relation to the offense or its conseEuences* alters
the situation of a person to his disadvanta(e.
..
This Court added t&o +ore to the list* na+ely6
3f4 that &hich assu+es to re(ulate civil ri(hts and re+edies only but in
effect i+poses a penalty or deprivation of a ri(ht &hich &hen done &as
la&ful=
3(4 deprives a person accussed of cri+e of so+e la&ful protection to
&hich he has beco+e entitled* such as the protection of a for+er
conviction or acEuittal* or a procla+ation of a a+nesty.
./
x post facto la&* (enerally* prohibits retrospectivity of penal la&s.
.6
R.A. "#$ is not penal la&. 7t is a
substantive la& on 'urisdiction &hich is not penal in character. Penal la&s are those acts of the )e(islature
&hich prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations=
.0
or those that define cri+es* treat
of their nature* and provide dor their punish+ent.
.8
R.A !$!2* &hich a+ended P.?. 8C1C as re(ards the
Sandi(anbayan5s 'urisdiction* its +ode of appeal and other procedural +atters* has been declared by the
Court as not a penal la&* but clearly a procedural statute* i.e. one &hich prescribes rules of procedure by
&hich courts applyin( la&s of all /inds can properly ad+inister 'ustice.
.9
Not bein( a penal la&* the
retroactive application of R.A. "#$ cannot be challen(ed as unconstitutional.
Petitioner5s and entervenors5 contention that their ri(ht to a t&o-tiered appeal &hich they acEuired under
R.A. !$!2 has been diluted by the enact+ent of R.A. "#$* is incorrect. The sa+e contention has already
been re'ected by the court several ti+es
/0
considerin( that the ri(ht to appeal is not a natural ri(ht but
statutory in nature that can be re(ulated by la&. The +ode of procedure provided for in the statutory ri(ht
of appeal is not included in the prohibition a(ainst ex post facto la&s.
/1
R.A. "#$ pertains only to +atters
of procedure* and bein( +erely an a+endatory statute it does not parta/e the nature of an ex post facto
la&. 7t does not +ete out a penalty and* therefore* does not co+e &ithin the prohibition.
/2
Moreover* the
la& did not alter the rules of evidence or the +ode of trial.
/-
7t has been ruled that ad'ective statutes +ay
be +ade applicable to actions pendin( and unresolved at the ti+e of their passa(e.
/.
7n any case= R.A. "#$ has preserved the accused5s ri(ht to appeal to the Supre+e Court to revie&
Euestions of la&.
//
An the re+oval of the inter+ediate revie& of facts* the Supre+e Court still has the
po&er of revie& to deter+ine if he presu+ption of innocence has been convincin( overco+e.
/6
Another point. The challen(ed la& does not violate the one-title-one-sub'ect provision of the Constitution.
Much e+phasis is placed on the &ordin( in the title of the la& that it FdefinesF the Sandi(anbayan
'urisdiction &hen &hat it alle(edly does is to Fe@pandF its 'urisdiction. The e@pantion in the 'urisdiction of
the Sandi(anbayan* if it can be considered as such* does not have to be e@pressly stated in the title of the
la& because such is the necessary conseEuence of the a+end+ents. The reEuire+ent that every bill
+ust only have one sub'ect e@pressed in the title
/0
is satisfied if the title is co+prehensive enou(h* as in
this case* to include sub'ects related to the (eneral purpose &hich the statute see/s to achieve.
/8
Such
rule is liberally interpreted and should be (iven a practical rather than a technical construction. There is
here sufficient co+pliance &ith such reEuire+ent* since the title of R.A. "#$ e@presses the (eneral
sub'ect 3involvin( the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan and the a+end+ent of P.?. 8C1C* as a+ended4
and all the provisions of the la& are (er+ane to that (eneral sub'ect.
/9
The Con(ress* in e+ployin( the
&ord FdefineF in the title of the la&* acted &ithin its po&er since Section #* Article B777 of the Constitution
itself e+po&ers the le(islative body to Fdefine* prescribe* and apportion the 'urisdiction of various courts.

60
There bein( no unconstitutional infir+ity in both the sub'ect a+endatory provision of Section and the
retroactive procedural application of the la& as provided in Section ! of R.A. No. "#$* &e shall no&
deter+ine &hether under the alle(ations in the 7nfor+ations* it is the Sandi(anbayan or Re(ional Trial
Court &hich has 'urisdictions over the +ultiple +urder case a(ainst herein petitioner and entervenors.
The 'urisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution or statute. The ele+ents of that definition +ust
appear in the co+plaint or infor+ation so as to ascertain &hich court has 'urisdiction over a case. >ence
the ele+entary rule that the 'urisdiction of a court is deter+ined by the alle(ations in the co+plaint or
infor+ations*
61
and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial.
62
As stated earlier* the +ultiple +urder char(e a(ainst petitioner and intervenors falls under Section
Ipara(raph bJ of R.A. "#$. Section reEuires that the offense char(ed +ust be co++itted by the
offender in relation to his office in order for the Sandi(anbayan to have 'urisdiction over it.
6-
This
'urisdictional reEuire+ent is in accordance &ith Section 2* Article H777 of the 8$!0 Constitution &hich
+andated that the Sandi(anbayan shall have 'urisdiction over cri+inal cases co++itted by the public
officers and e+ployees* includin( those in (over+ent-o&ned or controlled corporations* Fin relation to
their office as +ay be deter+ined by la&.F This constitutional +andate &as reiterated in the ne& 38$"!4
Constitution &hen it declared in Section thereof that the Sandi(anbayan shall continue to function and
e@ercise its 'urisdiction as no& or hereafter +ay be provided by la&.
The re+ainin( Euestion to be resolved then is &hether the offense of +ultiple +urder &as co++itted in
relation to the office of the accussed PNP officers.
7n People vs. !onte"o*
6.
&e held that an offense is said to have been co++itted in relation to the office if
it 3the offense4 is Finti+ately connectedF &ith the office of the offender and perpetrated &hile he &as in the
perfor+ance of his official functions.
6/
This inti+ate relation bet&een the offense char(ed and the
dischar(e of official duties F+ust be alle(ed in the infor+ations.F
66
As to ho& the offense char(ed be stated in the infor+ations* Section $* Rule 881 of the Revised Rules of
Court +andates6
Sec. $ Couse of accusation % The acts or o+issions co+plied of as constitutin( the
offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language &ithout repetition not
necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense* but in such from as is
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to #now what offense is intended
to be charged$ and enable the court to pronounce proper "udgment. 3E+phasis supplied4
As early as 8$2 &e pronounced that Fthe factor that characteri:es the char(e is the actual recital of the
facts.F
60
The real nature of the cri+inal char(e is deter+ined not fro+ the caption or prea+ble of the
infor+ations nor fro+ the specification of the provision of la& alle(ed to have been violated* they bein(
conclusions of la&* but by the actual recital of facts in the co+plaint or infor+ation.
68
The noble ob'ect or &ritten accusations cannot be overe+phasi:ed. This &as e@plained in %.S. v.
&arelsen6 C$
The ob'ect of this &ritten accusations &as % ,irst= To furnish the accused &ith such a
descretion of the char(e a(ainst hi+ as &ill enable hi+ to +a/e his defense and second
to avail hi+self of his conviction or acEuittal for protection a(ainst a further prosecution
for the sa+e cause and third* to infor+ the court of the facts alle(ed so that it +ay decide
&hether they are sufficient in la& to support a conviction if one should be had. 7n order
that the reEuire+ent +ay be satisfied* facts must be stated* not conclusions of law. Every
cri+e is +ade up of certain acts and intent these must be set forth in the complaint with
reasonable particularly of time* place* names 3plaintiff and defendant4 and circumstances.
7n short* the co+plaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance
necessary to constitute the crime charged. 3E+phasis supplied4
7t is essential* therefore* that the accused be infor+ed of the facts that are i+puted to hi+ as Fhe is
presu+ed to have no indefendent /no&led(e of the facts that constitute the offense.F
00
Applyin( these le(al principles and doctrines to the present case* &e find the a+ended infor+ations for
+urder a(ainst herein petitioner and intervenors &antin( of specific factual aver+ents to sho& the
inti+ate relationKconnection bet&een the offense char(ed and the dischar(e of official function of the
offenders.
7n the present case* one of the eleven 3884 a+ended infor+ations
01
for +urder reads6
AMEN?E? 7N,ARMAT7ANS
The undersi(ned Special Prosecution Afficer 777. Affice of the A+buds+an hereby
accuses C>7E, 7NSP. M7C>AE) RAL A;D7NA* C>7E, 7NSP. ERG7N T. B7))ACARTE*
SEN7AR 7NSP. .ASE)7TA T. ES;D7BE)* 7NSP. R7CAR?A <. ?AN?AN* SPA B7CENTE
P. ARNA?A* SPA RABERTA ,. )AN<CADAN* SPA# B7R<7)7A B. PARA<AS* SPA#
RA)AN?A R. .7MENE-* SPA8 G7),RE?A C. CDARTERA* SPA8 RABERTA A.
A<BA)A<* SPA8 ASMDN?A B. CAR7NA* C>7E, SDPT. .EGE) ,. CANSAN* C>7E,
SDPT. RAMEA M. ACAP* C>7E, SDPT. PAN,7)A M. )ACSAN* SEN7AR SDPT.
,RANC7SCA <. -DB7A .R.* SDPT. A)MAR7A A. >7)AR7A* C>7E, 7NSP. CESAR A.
MANCAA 777* C>7E, 7NSP. <7) ). MENESES* SEN7AR 7NSP. <)ENN ?DM)AA*
SEN7AR 7NSP. RA)AN?A AN?DLAN* 7NSP. CEASAR TANNA<AN* SPA0 G7))L
NDAS* SPA0 C7CERA S. BACA)A?* SPA# NARBERTA )ASA<A* PA# )EANAR?A
<)AR7A* and PA# A)E.AN?RA <. )7GANA< of the cri+e of Murder as defined and
penali:e under Article #" of the Revised Penal Code co++itted as follo&s
That on or about May 8"* 8$$2 in Mariano Marcos Avenue* ;ue:on City Philippines and
&ithin the 'urisdiction of his >onorable Court* the accused C>7E, 7NSP. M7C>AE) RAL
A;D7NA* C>7E, 7NSP. ERG7N T. B7))ACARTE* SEN7AR 7NSP. .ASE)7TA T.
ES;D7BE)* 7NSP. R7CAR?A <. ?AN?AN* SPA B7CENTE ARNA?A* SPA RABERTA
,. )AN<CADAN* SPA# B7R<7)7A B. PARA<AS* SPA# RA)AN?A R. .7MENE-* SPA8
G7),RE?A C. CDARTERA* SPA8 RABERTA A. A<BA)A<* and SPA8 ASMDN?A B.
CAR7NA* all ta/in( advanta(e of their public and official positions as officers and
+e+bers of the Philippine National Police and co++ittin( the acts herein alle(ed in
relation to their public office* conspirin( &ith intent to /ill and usin( firear+s &ith treachery
evident pre+editation and ta/in( advanta(e of their superior stren(hts did then and there
&illfully unla&fully and feloniously shoot .AE) AMARA* thereby inflictin( upon the latter
+ortal &ounds &hich caused his instantaneous death to the da+a(e and pre'udice of the
heirs of the said victi+.
That accused C>7E, SDPT. .EGE) ,. CANSAN* C>7E, SDPT. RAMAE M. ACAP*
C>7E, SDPT. PAN,7)A M. )ACSAN* SEN7AR SDPT. ,RANC7SCA <. -DB7AM .R.*
SDPT. A)MAR7A A. >7)AR7A* C>7E, 7NSP. CESAR A. MANCAA 77* C>7E, 7NSP. <7) ).
MENESES* SEN7AR 7NSP. <)ENN ?DM)AA* SEN7AR 7NSP. RA)AN?A AN?DLAN*
7NSP. CEASAR TANNA<AN* SPA0 G7))L NDAS* SPA0 C7CERA S. BACA)A?* PA#
A)E.AN?RA <. )7GANA< co++ittin( the acts in relation to office as officers and
+e+bers of the Philippine National Police are char(ed herein as accessories after-the-
fact for concealin( the cri+e herein above alle(ed by a+on( others falsely representin(
that there &here no arrest +ade durin( the read conducted by the accused herein at
Superville Subdivision* ParanaEue* Metro Manila on or about the early da&n of May 8"*
8$$2.
CANTRARL )AG.
Ghile the above-Euoted infor+ation states that the above-na+ed principal accused co++itted the cri+e
of +urder Fin relation to thier public office* there is* ho&ever* no specific alle(ation of facts that the
shootin( of the victi+ by the said principal accused &as inti+ately related to the dischar(e of their official
duties as police officers. )i/e&ise* the a+ended infor+ation does not indicate that the said accused
arrested and investi(ated the victi+ and then /illed the latter &hile in their custody.
Even the alle(ations concernin( the cri+inal participation of herein petitioner and intevenors as a+on(
the accessories after-the-facts* the a+ended infor+ation is va(ue on this. 7t is alle(ed therein that the
said accessories concelead Fthe cri+e herein-above alle(ed by* a+on( others* falsely representin( that
there &ere no arrests +ade durin( the raid conducted by the accused herein at Superville Subdivision*
ParanaEue Metro Manila* on or about the early da&n of May 8"* 8$$2.F The sudden +ention of the
Farrests +ade durin( the raid conducted by the accusedF surprises the reader. There is no indication in
the a+ended infor+ation that the victi+ &as one of those arrested by the accused durin( the Fraid.F
Gorse* the raid and arrests &ere alle(edly conducted Fat Superville Subdivision* ParanaEue* Metro
ManilaF but* as alle(ed in the i++ediately precedin( para(raph of the a+ended infor+ation* the shootin(
of the victi+ by the principal accused occurred in Mariano Marcos Avenue* ;ue:on City.F >o& the raid*
arrests and shootin( happened in the t&o places far a&ay fro+ each other is pu::lin(. A(ain* &hile there
is the alle(ation in the a+ended infor+ation that the said accessories co++itted the offense Fin relation to
office as officers and +e+bers of the 3PNP4*F &e* ho&ever* do not see the inti+ate connection bet&een
the offense char(ed and the accused5s official functions* &hich* as earlier discussed* is an essential
ele+ent in deter+inin( the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan.
The strin(ent reEuire+ent that the char(e be set forth &ith such particularly as &ill reasonably indicate the
e@act offense &hich the accused is alle(ed to have co++itted in relation to his office &as* sad to say* not
satisfied. Ge believe that the +ere alle(ation in the a+ended infor+ation that the offense &as co++itted
by the accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. That phrase is +erely a conclusion
bet&een of la&* not a factual avern+ent that &ould sho& the close inti+acy bet&een the offense char(ed
and the dischar(e of the accused5s official duties.
7n People vs. !agallanes*
02
&here the 'urisdiction bet&een the Re(ional Trial Court and the
Sandi(anbayan &as at issue* &e ruled6
7t is an ele+entary rule that 'urisdiction is deter+ined by the alle(ations in the co+plaint
or infor+ation and not by the result of evidence after trial.
7n 3People vs4 Monte'o 381" Phil C80 38$C14* &here the a+ended infor+ation alle(ed
)eroy S. Bro&n City Mayor of Basilan City* as such* has or(ani:ed
(roups of police patrol and civilian co++andoes consistin( of re(ular
police+an and . . . special police+en appointed and provided by hi+ &ith
pistols and hi(her po&er (uns and then established a ca+p . . . at Tipo-
tipo &hich is under his co++and . . . supervision and control &here his
co-defendants &ere stationed entertained cri+inal co+plaints and
conducted the correspondin( investi(ations as &ell as assu+ed the
authority to arrest and detain person &ithout due process of la& and
&ithout brin(in( the+ to the proper court* and that in line &ith this set-up
established by said Mayor of Basilan City as such* and actin( upon his
orders his co-defendants arrested and +altreated A&alin Teba( &ho
denied in conseEuence thereof.
&e held that the offense char(ed &as co++itted in relation to the office of the accused
because it &as perpetreated &hile they &ere in the perfor+ance* thou(h i+proper or
irre(ular of their official functions and &ould not have been co++itted had they not held
their office* besides* the accused had no personal +otive in co++ittin( the cri+e thus*
there &as an inti+ate connection bet&een the offense and the office of the accused.
Dnli/e in Monte'o the infor+ations in Cri+inal Cases Nos. 822C# and 822C0 in the court
belo& do not indicate that the accused arrested and investi(ated the victi+s and then
/illed the latter in the course of the investi(ation. The infor+ations +erely alle(e that the
accused for the purpose of e@tractin( or e@tortin the su+ of P020*111.11 abducted*
/idnapped and detained the t&o victi+s* and failin( in their co++on purpose they shot=
and /illed the said victi+s. 'or the purpose of determining "urisdiction$ it is these
allegations that shall control* and not the evidence presented by the prosecution at the
trial.
7n the aforecited case of People vs. !onte"o* it is note&orthy that the phrase co++itted in relation to
public office Fdoes not appear in the infor+ation* &hich only si(nifies that the said phrase is not &hat
deter+ines the 'urisdiction of the Sandi(anbayan. Ghat is controllin( is the specific factual alle(ations in
the infor+ation that &ould indicate the close inti+acy bet&een the dischar(e of the accused5s official
duties and the co++ission of the offense char(ed* in order to Eualify the cri+e as havin( been co++itted
in relation to public office.
ConseEuently* for failure to sho& in the a+ended infor+ations that the char(e of +urder &as inti+ately
connected &ith the dischar(e of official functions of the accused PNP officers* the offense char(ed in the
sub'ect cri+inal cases is plain +urder and* therefore* &ithin the e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction of the
Re(ional Trial Court*
0-
not the Sandi(anbayan.
G>ERE,ARE* the constitutionality of Sections and ! of R.A. "#$ is hereby sustained. The Addendu+
to the March 2* 8$$! Resolution of the Sandi(anbayan is REBERSE?. The Sandi(anbayan is hereby
directed to transfer Cri+inal Cases Nos. #01! to #012! 3for +ultiple +urder4 to the Re(ional Trial Court
of ;ue:on City &hich has e@clusive ori(inal 'urisdiction over the said cases.()wphi(.n*t
SA AR?ERE?.