Manuel Montilla(Provincial Fiscal, Ilocos Sur , Faustino Tobia vs Zoilo Hilario(Judge CFI Ilocos

Sur), Floro Crisologo (Congressman)

Facts: Section 17, Article VI, of the Constitution bars Senators and members of the House of
Representatives from, among other inhibitions, appearing as counsel before any court "in any criminal
case wherein an officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense committed in relation to
his office."
Montilla and Tobia seek to set aside an order of Judge Hilario overruling their objection to allow
Crisologos intervention as defense counsel in Criminal Case 129 for murder with(and) frustrated Murder
against the municipal mayor and three members of the police force of Santa Catalina Ilocos Sur.
The information charges that the defendants took advantage of their public positions, conspiring together
with firearms to attack and shoot several persons that killed one Claudio Ragasa and inflict physical
injuries to three others.
The official posts of the accused in the criminal case were not in connection in the information filed but the
prosecution stated the motives of the crime were personal with political character
Issue: Whether or not Floro Crisologo can appear as counsel?
Held: There was no evidence that the office of congressman Crisologo had anything to do with the
criminal case that said congressman wanted to appear as counsel.
People v. Lagon
Facts: A criminal case was filed charging Lagon with the crime of estafa because of an issued check for
payment of goods or merchandise purchased of which bounced due to lack of funds.
An order was then issued by Judge Barrios, stating that the penalty prescribed by law was beyond the
courts authority to impose The judge held that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is
determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, and not by the law in force at the
time of the commission of the crime. The penalty imposable upon the accused was increased and said
penalty was beyond the courts authority to impose.
Issue: Does the City Court have jurisdiction on the case?
Held: No, the City Court doesnt have jurisdiction on the case. It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject
matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly measured by the law in effect at the time of
the commencement of a criminal action, rather than by the law in effect at the time of the commission of
the offense charged. Jurisdiction over the instant case pertained to the then Court of First Instance of
Roxas City considering that P.D. No. 818 had increased the imposable penalty for the offense charged in
Criminal Case
People v. Montejo
Facts: Mayor Brown organized a substation at Tipo-Tipo, Lamitan consisting of regular and special
policemen which was placed under his direct supervision and control. Pollisco then ordered the
apprehension of persons and were detained in the camp for days or weeks, without due process of law
and without bringing them to proper court.
One Yokan Tebag was ordered by orders of Brown, without warrant or complaint filed in court and was
detained in the substation. Said Tebag was maltreated by orders of Brown through the policemen and
died in the process. Brown then brought the body of Tebag in a nearby field simulating that the latter was
a member of a band of armed bandits.
Respondent Judge rejected numerous direct and rebuttal evidence by the prosecution.

Issue: WON the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the evidence brought
by the prosecution.
WON Senator Roseller Lim may appear as counsel for the main respondents
Held:
Yes, the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the evidences brought by the prosecution.
It is elemental that all parties therein are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to establish their respective
pretense. The issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused is based on the evidence brought by both
parties and should be given a chance to present.
No, Senator Roseller Lim will not appear as counsel for the main respondents. the Constitution provides
that no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall "appear as counsel ... in any criminal
case wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation of
his office ... (Art. VI, Sec. 17, Const. of the Phil.).
Browns co-defendants obeyed his instructions because he was their superior office, as Mayor of Basilan
City. Because of the merits of the case, Senator Lim is not allowed to appear as counsel for the
defendants on the case.
Bartolome v. People
Facts:
Bartolome and Santos were charged by the Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor of the crime of Falsification
of Official Document. Bartolome was a Senior Labor Regulation Officer of the Ministry of Labor while
Santos is a Labor Regulation Officer at the same office of which they falsified an official document stating
that accused Bartolome took the Career Service exam with a grade of 73.35 and was a 4 th year AB from
FEU, but both knew did not take said exam and was not a 4 th year AB Student.

Issue: WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over said case

Held: The Sandiganbayan court does not have jurisdiction on said case and any proceedings thereto are
void ab initio.
Citing Montejo and Montilla doctrine, there is no showing that the accused committed the alleged
falsification using their official functions as labor regulation officers. The information does not allege that
there was an intimate connection between the discharge of their official duties and commission of the
offense.
People v. Magallanes
Facts: Two informations were filed for kidnapping for ransom with murder with the RTC of Bacolod City
against the respondents where in some of the accused implicated as principals are members of the PNP.
The private prosecutors moved for the transmittal of the records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan the
trial court has no jurisdiction over the cases because the offenses charged were committed in relation to
the office of the accused PNP officers
The respondent judge in the RTC ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the
subject cases because the information does not state that the offenses were committed in relation to the
office of the PNP officers. Citing Montilla doctrine.
Citing Montejo doctrine, the prosecution moved to reconsider said order

Dumancas and Torres are also respondents in the criminal cases filed a motion for bail but was denied by
the trial court
Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan or RTC has jurisdiction on the two cases.
Whether or not the motions for bail of respondents Dumancas and Torres were allowed.
Held: It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information, and not by the result of evidence after trial.
Since the information filed lacked the allegation that the accused PNP officers were committing the crime
in relation to the office of the latter or connected to the discharge of their functions, the subject case
comes within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
There is no showing that the said accused-respondents have questioned the denial of their applications
for bail in a petition for certiorari either before the Court of Appeals or this Court. Here, about nine to ten
months had already elapsed before the respondents assailed the denial of their motions for bail. In any
event, the private respondents who were denied bail are not precluded from reiterating before the trial
court their plea for admission to bail.
Inding v Sandiganbayan
Facts Inding was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dapitan City with violation of Section 3
of RA 3019. Inding being a councilor of Dapitan City and while in performance of his official functions
faked buy-bust operations against alleged pushers and users to enable him to claim or collect from the
coffers of the city government as reimbursement for actual expenses of said buy-bust operations of which
he had no participation in said police operations.
A criminal case was then filed against Inding and was raffled to the second division of the
Sandiganbayan. Inding filed an Omnibus Motion stating that the Sandiganbayan doesnt have jurisdiction
and was to be referred to either the RTC or MTC for appropriate proceedings.
The petitioner alleged therein that under Administrative Order No. 270 which prescribes the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, he is a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Dapitan City with Salary Grade (SG) 25. He asserted that under Republic Act No. 7975,
which amended Presidential Decree No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan exercises original jurisdiction to try
cases involving crimes committed by officials of local government units only if such officials occupy
positions with SG 27 or higher, based on Rep. Act No. 6758
Issue Whether or not the members of the sangguniang panglusod are included in the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the petitioner for violating Section 3 of
RA 3019
Held: Yes, the members of the sangguniang panglusod are included in the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan regardless of the salary grade as stated in RA 7975
Yes the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over the petitioner for violating RA 3019. Generally, the
jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the
institution of the action not at the time of the commission of the crime.
HOWEVER. In RA 7975 as well as RA 8249 constitutes an exception as to determine the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan in cases violating RA 3019 of which the reckoning period is the time of the

commission of the offense. As stated in the RA 7975, the petitioner is under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over cases filed against him for violating RA 3019 regardless of salary grades since it is
specified in said RA
Serana v Sandiganbayan
Facts: Hannah Serana was a senior student of UP Cebu. She was appointed by President Estrada as a
student regent of UP. Petitioner then discussed with President Estrada in renovating the Vinzons Hall
Annex in UP Diliman and petitioner with her siblings and relatives registered with the SEC the Office of
the Student Regent Foundation Inc. OSRFI
The renovation of the Vinzon Halls Annex were one of the projects of the foundation and President
Estrada gave 15 million Pesos as financial assistance of which the source coming from the office of the
president.
Said renovations failed to materialize and the succeeding student regent Bugayong and De Guzman filed
a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian Serana for estafa in a
criminal case No. 27819 of the Sandiganbayan
Petitioner moved to quash the information stating that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over
the offense charged over her in capacity as UP student regent
Issue Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the petitioner.
Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa
Held:
-

Sec 4 of RA 8249 states the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over public officials
RA 3019 is a penal statute to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike
which constitute graft or corrupt practices. Sec 10 of said RA states that all prosecutions for
violations of said law should be filed with the Sandiganbayan
Section 4(b) of PD 1606 reads that other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with
other crimes committed by the public officials and employees are also included.