BINAY vs. Sandiganbayan

February 24, 2018 | Author: pipay04 | Category: Jurisdiction, Crimes, Crime & Justice, Judiciaries, Criminal Law
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

case digest...


Jejomar C. Binay vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan Facts: Cases were filed by the Ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan (SB for brevity) against Mayor Binay of Makati for ‘Illegal Use of Public Funds’ (RPC A220) and ‘Violation of AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act’ (RA 3019) on September 1994. The informations filed constituted crimes which were committed by the petitioner in his incumbency in the year 1987. The petitioner filed a motion to quash alleging that the delay of more than 6 years constituted a violation of his constitutional right of due process. His arraignment therefore was held in abeyance pending the resolution of the motions. Subsequently, the SB issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to quash and further the latter’s motion for reconsideration. In the meantime, the prosecution filed a motion to suspend the accused ‘pendente lite’ (benefits) which was later granted and ordered for a 90-day suspension. Petition for certiorari was filed by Mayor Binay in the SC praying that the resolution denying his motion for reconsideration be set aside and claimed that he was denied of his rights when the suspension was ordered even before he could file his reply to the petitioner’s opposition. SC then, directed the SB to permit petitioner to file said reply. The SB nonetheless reiterated its previous resolutions and order after the submission of the reply. Meanwhile, RA 7975 redefining the jurisdiction of SB took effect on May 1995 so much so that the petitioner filed before SB a motion to refer his cases to the RTC of Makati alleging that the SB has no jurisdiction over said cases when it issued its resolutions and suspension order on June 1995. The SB in a follow-up resolution denied the petitioner’s motion. Hence this present petition, prohibition and mandamus questioning the jurisdiction of SB over the criminal cases. Issue: WoN SB has jurisdiction over the case of after the passage of RA 7975. Held: YES. RA 7975 which was further amended by RA 8249 states that the SB shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense: 1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as grade "27" and higher of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 Under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, mayors are "local officials classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher. -- Jab --

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.