Scribd
Upload
93 views1 page

Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction in Kidnapping Case

The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged in the amended information against Antiporda, Jr. and others for kidnapping. While the original information did not allege that the offense was office-related, which is necessary for the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the petitioners are estopped from challenging jurisdiction because they previously argued that the regional trial court did not have jurisdiction and the crime was work-connected. Jurisdiction can be based on estoppel when a party invokes a court's authority for relief but later denies that same jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan therefore properly ordered the amendment of the information.

Uploaded by

MJ Dela Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
93 views1 page

Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction in Kidnapping Case

The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged in the amended information against Antiporda, Jr. and others for kidnapping. While the original information did not allege that the offense was office-related, which is necessary for the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the petitioners are estopped from challenging jurisdiction because they previously argued that the regional trial court did not have jurisdiction and the crime was work-connected. Jurisdiction can be based on estoppel when a party invokes a court's authority for relief but later denies that same jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan therefore properly ordered the amendment of the information.

Uploaded by

MJ Dela Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Antiporda, Jr. vs.

Garchitorena
G.R. No. 133289
1999 December 23
Facts:
Antiporda, Jr., Rubiaco, Gascon and Talla were all charged with the crime of kidnapping one
Elmer Ramos in an information filed with the First Division of Sandiganbayan. However, the information
filed did not allege that one of the petitioners, Antiporda, Jr., took advantage of his position as mayor of
Buguey, Cagayan to order the kidnapping of Ramos. Thus, the prosecutor in charge filed an amended
information. The accused filed a Motion to Quash the amended information for lack of jurisdiction over
the offense charged. This was ignored by the Sandiganbayan and thus a motion for reconsideration was
filed by the accused, alleging that the filing of the Motion to Quash and the appearance of their counsel
during the scheduled hearing thereof amounted to their voluntary appearance and invested the court with
jurisdiction over their persons. This was also denied by the Sandiganbayan. Hence, this petition.

Issues:
Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged in the amended
information.
Ruling:
Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged in the amended
information. Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice, that is, for
hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it
must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Sec. 4, paragraph (a) of P.D. No. 1606,
as amended by P.D. No. 1861 provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:

(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office,
including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed
with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment
for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00. Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this
paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for
six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

While it is true that at first, Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the original
offense given that the original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense
committed by the accused is office-related and it was only after the same was filed that the prosecution
belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein, the petitioners are estopped from
assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to motion for
reconsideration and/or reinvestigation filed with the same court, it was they who "challenged the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration
that the said crime is work connected. It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.

We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was
thus vested with the authority to order the amendment of the Information.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

You might also like